TC 

SI'* 

A(oF7 


Issued June 30,1911. 

U, S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS—BULLETIN 236. 

A C. TRUE, Director. 



BY 

R. H. FORBES, 

Director, Arizona Experiment Station. 


PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OP 


SAMUEL FORTIER, 

Chief of Irrigation Investigations. 




WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
1911. 




























Gass_1 (L.. % 

Book .A& _ 


f 





















t 



* 


k 










































































' 



















1334 






Issued .Tune 30, 1911. 


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

1 

OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS—BULLETIN 235. 

A C. TRUE, Director. 


IRRIGATION IN ARIZONA. 

4 


BY 

R. H. FORBES, 

Director , Arizona Experiment Station. 


PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OP 


SAMUEL FORTIER, 

Chief of Irrigation Investigations. 


\ 



WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
1911, 


























OFFICE OF EXPERIMENT STATIONS. 

A. C. True, Director. 

E. W. Allen, Assistant Director. 



IRRIGATION INVESTIGATIONS. 


Samuel Fortier, Chief. 

R. P. Teele, Assistant Chief. 

IRRIGATION ENGINEERS AND IRRIGATION MANAGERS. 

A. P. Stover, Irrigation Engineer, in charge of work in Oregon. 

C. E. Tait, Irrigation Enginear, in charge of work in southern California. 

S. O. Jayne, Irrigation Manager, in charge of work in Washington. 

Frank Adams, Irrigation Engineer, in charge of work in California. 

W. W. McLaughlin, Irrigation Engineer, in charge of work in Utah. 

P. E. Fuller, Irrigation Engineer, in charge of work in Arizona and of power 
investigations. 

W. L. Rockwell, Irrigation Manager, in charge of work in Texas. 

D. H. Bark, Irrigation Engineer, in charge of work in Idaho. 

Milo B. Williams, Irrigation Engineer; in charge of work in humid sections. 

V. M. Cone, Irrigation Engineer, in charge of work in central California. 

C. G. Haskell, Irrigation Engineer, in charge of rice investigations. 

Fred G. Harden, Scientific Assistant. 

R. D. Robertson, Assistant Irrigation Engineer. 

J. W. Longstreth, in charge of work in Kansas. 

S. H. Beckett, Scientific Assistant. 


COLLABORATORS. 


O. V. P. Stout, University of Nebraska, in charge of work in Nebraska. 

Gordon H. True, University of Nevada, in charge of work in Nevada. 

W. B. Gregory, Tulane University of Louisiana, in charge of rice irrigation in 
Louisiana and Texas. 

F. L. Bixby, New Mexico Agricultural College, in charge of work in New Mexico. 


irrigation farmers. 


John H. Gordon, R. G. Hemphill, W. II. Lauck, R. E. Mahoney, and John 
Krall, Jr. 

[Bull. 235] (2) 



w 



r> 



( 2 ) 


LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 


U. S. Department of Agriculture, 

Office of Experiment Stations, 
Washington, D. C., February 1, 1911. 

Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a report on irrigation 
in Arizona, prepared by R. H. Forbes, director of the experiment 
station of that Territory, under the direction of Samuel Fortier, chief 
of irrigation investigations. This is one of a series of reports pre¬ 
pared in this Office for the purpose of giving general information 
regarding the opportunities for settlement on irrigated lands in the 
several Western States and Territories, the cost of land and water and 
of establishing homes on these lands, and regarding the crops grown. 

Director Forbes wishes to acknowledge helpful criticism of the 
chapter on laws and usages relating to irrigation by Ex-Governor 
Joseph H. Ivibbey, of the Territory; hydrographic information 
received from Assistant Engineer Howard S. Reed and Project 
Engineer Francis L. Sellew, of the U. S. Reclamation Service; and 
assistance afforded by Mr. F. C. Kelton of the Arizona Station. 

It is recommended that this report be published as a bulletin of this 
Office. 

A. C. True, Director. 


Hon. James Wilson, 

Secretary of Agriculture. 

[Bull. 235j (3) 

























CONTENTS. 


Page. 

Introduction. 9 

History of irrigation development. 9 

Area and topography. 12 

Flora. 13 

Industries. 14 

Assessed valuation and population. 15 

Climate. 15 

Crops. 17 

Markets and farm income. 20 

Cultivated crops. 20 

Live stock. 21 

Forest products. 22 

Lands. 22 

Classification for administration. 22 

Methods of acquiring land. 23 

Unreserved public lands. 23 

Reserved public lands and railroad lands... 24 

Agricultural classification of lands. 25 

Soils. 27 

Water resources. 28 

Surface streams. 29 

Colorado River. 29 

Nature of watershed. 29 

Discharge. 32 

Storage possibilities. 34 

Little Colorado River. 37 

Salt River. 38 

Nature of watershed.:. 38 

Discharge and storage possibilities. 39 

Irrigable area in valley. 42 

Power and pumping. 45 

Gila River. ? - 45 

Watershed and run-off. 45 

Storage possibilities. 48 

Small streams. 49 

Upper Verde River. 49 

San Pedro and Santa Cruz Rivers. 50 

Bill Williams Fork. 51 

Other small supplies. 51 

Seepage and return waters. . - 51 

Reservoir sites. 52 

Ground waters. 53 

Waters within 50 feet of surface... v . 53 

Artesian wells.-. 55 

Summary and estimate of water supply..... 56 

[Bull. 235] (5) 
















































6 


CONTENTS 


Page. 

Laws and usages relating to irrigation.... . 57 

Old Mexican laws. 57 

Cooperative organizations. 57 

Development of irrigation law in Arizona. 58 

Irrigation enterprises and agricultural practice. 61 

Irrigation in the Colorado Valley. 62 

Climate. 62 

Water supply. 63 

Soils. 63 

Yuma project and other irrigation works. 64 

Farm prac tic e. 65 

Irrigation in the Salt River Valley. 67 

Climate. 67 

Water supply. 68 

Soils. 69 

Salt River project. 69 

Farm practice..*. 71 

Irrigation along the Gila River and its tributaries. 74 

Irrigation works. 75 

Farm practice. 76 

Irrigation along the Verde River and its tributaries. 77 

Irrigation along the Little Colorado River. 77 

Farming with rainfall, supplemented by irrigation. 79 

Grazing ranges. 80 

The agricultural present and future. 80 

Areas now under cultivation. 80 

Estimated area possible to cultivate. 81 

Lines of progress. 82 

(Bull. 235] 


9 






























ILLUSTRATIONS. 


PLATES. 

Page. 

Plate I. Map of Arizona, showing streams and administrative divisions of the 

lands. 22 

II. Hydrographic map of Arizona. 28 

III. View of complete Roosevelt Dam. 70 

IV. Upper Verde River canals. 76 

FIGURES. 

4 

Fig. 1. Cross section of prehistoric ditch. 9 

2. Prehistoric and modern canals in a portion of the Salt River Valley... 10 

3. Lands subject to entry under the “ dry-farm ” act. 24 

4. Hydrographic features of the Salt River Valley. 41 

5. Graph showing irrigation possibilities of the Salt River under different 

conditions. 42 

6. Yuma, or Laguna, project. 64 

7. The Roosevelt Dam, nearing completion, May 10, 1910. 70 

8. Salt River project.-. = 71 

[Bull. 235] (7) 



























































































































IRRIGATION IN ARIZONA. 


INTRODUCTION. 

HISTORY OF IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT. 

Irrigation, which for the most part is a prerequisite to agriculture 
in Arizona, was fiVst practiced in this region by ancient peoples. In 
the valleys of the Little Colorado, Salt, and Gila Rivers, and along the 
Verde River and smaller tributaries are found unmistakable remains 
of ditches and reservoirs, together with ruins of the cliT dwellings 
and the communal houses of tribes which had been scattered long; 
before the advent of the Spanish explorers. The character of 
these remains indicates that these ancient Indians possessed consid¬ 
erable skill in the art of irrigating. Their ditches and reservoirs 
were finished with hard linings of tamped or burnt clay, and one 
instance is known where a main canal was cut for a considerable dis¬ 
tance through solid 
rock. Sometimes a 
smaller ditch was 
sunk in the bottom 
of a large canal to 

facilitate the car- FxG - l —Cross section of prehistoric ditch, showing channel in bottom 
. „ ni for carrying a small irrigating stream. 

nage ot small runs 

of water, and thus seepage and evaporation were diminished m times 
of scant flow (fig. 1). The ancient canals in the Salt River Valley 
aggregated a length of at least 150 miles and were sufficient for the 
irrigation of 250,000 acres of land, 1 although it is not likely that the 
whole of this area was ever watered at any one time (fig. 2). In the 
ruins of the houses of grouted clay are found relics of cotton and 
corn; beans, squashes, and tobacco were also grown. 

The Pimas and Papagos, who are probably descendants of this, 
prehistoric people, have continued to water and till the soil. The 
Pimas particularly are good irrigating farmers. They are a sedentary 
tribe which, since modern records began, has maintained itself in the 
Salt and Gila River Valleys in south-central Arizona. Their nomadic 
relatives, the Papagos, taking advantage of the uncertain rains which 



1 Prehistoric Irrigation in Arizona, F. W. Ilodge, American Anthropologist, July, 1893. 
[Bull. 235] (9) 







10 


chance upon them, utilize the run-off from summer storms, soak their 
soil, and plant quick-growing crops of corn, beans, squashes, and 
melons. The several tribes along the Colorado River—the Mohaves, 
Chemehuevis, lumas, and Cocopahs—grow crops in that fertile 
valley after a peculiar method necessitated by the behavior of the 
river. Their main crop season begins immediately after the subsi¬ 
dence of the annual flood in July. Millets are sown in the mud flats 
exposed by the falling waters, much after the fashion of Egyptian 
irrigators under the old basin system used along the Nile. Other 

crops, such as 
corn, squashes, 
and melons are 
planted, as soon 
as the bottom 
lands are dry 
enough, in pits 
sometimes 2 feet 
deep, from which 
the plants issue 
quickly in profuse 
growth. Suffi¬ 
cient moisture is 
brought within the 
reach of the plant 
roots by this 
method of deep 
planting to insure 
a crop without fur¬ 
ther irrigation. 

The first Euro¬ 
pean irrigators in 
Arizona were, with¬ 
out doubt, the Jes¬ 
uits, who first es¬ 
tablished them¬ 
selves at the old 
missions of Guevavi and San Xavier in 1732. It was not until the 
more prosperous period from about 1768 to 1822, however, that there 
was any considerable development of irrigation at favorable points 
along the Santa Cruz River, near the missions and the Spanish presidios 
of Tubac and Tucson. During the chaotic period of Mexican rule which 
followed acequias were maintained, orchards were planted, and annual 
crops of barley, wheat, corn, tobacco, beans, melons, squashes, and pep¬ 
pers—both native and introduced crops—were cultivated. Although 
from an engineering standpoint the head works and canals of this period 

[Bull. 235] 



Fig. 2.— Prehistoric and modern canals in a portion of Salt River Valley, 
located by James C. Goodwin, Tempe, Arizona. 






















































11 


were of the simplest construction and of small extent, the Mexican 
people were skillful in the management of water and possessed an agri¬ 
cultural aptitude well expressed by them in their phrase “el mano por 
sembrar ’—the planting hand. They also adopted certain ideas in 
equity, and customs relating to the distribution and use of water, which 
are approved in the best irrigation practice of the present time. 
Among these was the rule that water is appurtenant to the land. 

The Americans in Arizona received their first instruction in irriga¬ 
tion from the Mexicans. The third, or modern, stage of agricultural 
development may be said to date from the Gadsden purchase in 1854, 
after which increasing numbers of Americans—military followers, 
stragglers from the immigrant stream to California, and pioneers by 
instinct—began to make permanent homes in the land. 

Irrigation in the Salt River Valley began soon after the close of the 
Civil War, when military occupation of the region was resumed and 
the Army posts offered the settlers both safety and remunerative 
prices for their products. Canal construction was rapid, beginning 
with the old Swilling Ditch in 1867, and 20 years later about as much 
land had been reclaimed as could be irrigated from Salt River in 
seasons of scant flow. Nevertheless, during a series of wet years that 
followed, additional areas were put under cultivation until more 
ground was nominally reclaimed than could be irrigated by the 
“critical minimum” water supply. The inevitable hardships which 
resulted from this condition during ensuing dry years, especially 
1898-1904, led to anxious discussion of remedial measures and pre¬ 
pared the way for the construction under United States Reclamation 
Service auspices of the Roosevelt Storage Dam, which is now (March, 
1911), completed. 

The second largest irrigated district in Arizona (1911) is in 
Graham County on the upper Gila River. It was settled by Mexican 
colonists in 1874 and later by the Mormons in 1879. As in the Salt 
River Valley, there has been a tendency to overappropriate lands under 
the available water supply, with consequent distress in dry years. 
Thus far, however, conditions in this locality are prosperous, owing 
to the fact that the flow of the Gila River at this point is comparatively 
regular and fairly adequate to irrigate the area under cultivation, 
although the total amount of land under ditch is in excess of the 
water supply. 

The Colorado River Valley, although the most extensive and 
potentially the richest and best watered of the agricultural regions, 
is the last to be developed through irrigation, principally because of 
the unmanageable character of this eccentric stream and the large 
expense of the permanent irrigation works required for its control. 
Although a few small enterprises near Yuma have achieved temporary 
successes during the past 15 years, it was not until the United States 

[Bull. 235] 


12 


Reclamation Service undertook the construction of the Laguna Bar¬ 
rage that the irrigation of considerable areas was assured. The com¬ 
pletion of this barrage in March, 1909, presages the early irrigation 
in Arizona of 90,000 acres of alluvial bottom lands, and later of about 
40,000 acres of adjacent mesa. 

Along the Little Colorado, the Verde, the San Pedro, and the Santa 
Cruz Rivers and many smaller streams, numerous ditches take prac¬ 
tically the whole of the minimum flow for the irrigation of little farms 
leveled, often with much labor, in nooks and corners of an angular 
country. 

The progress of irrigation in Arizona during the pioneering stage 
of American occupation may be suggested by the following summary: 


Areas irrigated in Arizona at different dates. 


Date. 

Source of information. 

Area 

actually 

irrigated. 

1854. 

1890.. 

Old map in Pima County assessor’s office, and Mexican traditions.». 

Eleventh Census Report . 

Acres. 

2,000 
05,821 
185,396 
227,770 

1899 

Twelfth Census Report, Volume VI, part 2, page 820. 

1909. 

Author’s estimate. 




Notf. —Lands irrigated by uncivilized Indians within the Territory not included. According to Rev. C. H. 
Cook, who has lived among the Pimas since 1870, that tribe in 1854 irrigated about 3,000 acres on the Gila 
below Sacaton. The Moquis and the Navajos in the north, the Mohaves and Chemehuevis on the Colorado 
River, the Apaches, and the nomadic Papagos of the southwestern district, all irrigated small patches 
of ground aggregating possibly an additional 2,000 acres. A fair approximation of land crudely farmed by 
the Indian tribes in 1854 is 5,000 acres. 

The continuation of a development which has increased the irri¬ 
gated area from 2,000 to 228,000 acres in the 55 years of American 
occupation is worthy of study. With the whole of the minimum 
surface flow of the Territory now in use and only flood waters escap¬ 
ing, it is evident that any further expansion of agricultural industry 
must depend upon the storage of flood waters, the development of 
underground supplies, and improved cultural methods. 

AREA AND TOPOGRAPHY. 

Arizona has an area of 113,956 square miles, of which all but about 
116 square miles, 1 or over 99.9 per cent, is land surface. 2 The Terri¬ 
tory is situated in the midst of the semiarid, subtropical region of 
the southwestern part of the United States and northwestern Mexico. 
Its remoteness from communications by land or sea and the hereto- 


1 U. S. Dept. Commerce and Labor, Statistical Abstract, 1908, p. 20. 

2 The water surface is occasionally expanded by recurring floods, especially in the Colorado River. 
The shifting course of this river along the Mexico-California boundary also causes noteworthy changes 
in the area of the Territory. 

[Bull. 235] 


9 


















13 


fore more attractive domains of Texas and California on either side, 
have left it to be one of the last of the Commonwealths to be de¬ 
veloped. The mining, stock raising, and agricultural industries, 
however, are now in a stage of rapid advancement. 

This great oblong of primitive country—about 340 by 390 miles 
in its extreme dimensions—may be divided nearly equally into two 
distinct climatic zones by a somewhat irregular diagonal line running 
from the point where the Gila River enters the Territory to that 
point on the Nevada boundary where the Colorado River turns south¬ 
ward. The region north and east of this line consists in large part 
of comparatively level plateaus 5,000 to 8,000 feet above sea level, 
diversified by isolated buttes and short mountain chains, and cut by 
eroded canyons, chief among which is the tremendous chasm of the 
Colorado River. The southwestern half of the Territory is less ele¬ 
vated and is crossed from northwest to southeast by a succession of 
low mountain ranges and wide valleys decreasing gradually in alti¬ 
tude from the New Mexico line to the Colorado River. San Francisco 
Mountain, an extinct volcano in north-central Arizona, 12,794 feet 
in altitude, is the highest point of land, the lowest being the Colorado 
River bottoms at the Mexican boundary below Yuma, with an ele¬ 
vation ranging down to 83 feet at times of minimum stream flow. 

Nearly the whole visible water loss of Arizona passes by way of 
the Colorado River to the Gulf of California. The Little Colorado 
pours most of the run-off of the northeastern plateau into the Grand 
Canon of the main stream, while the Gila River collects the drainage 
of the central and southern parts of the Territory and joins the 
Colorado just above Yuma. 

FLORA. 

The indigenous vegetation of the Territory corresponds in dif¬ 
ferent localities to varying climatic conditions, especially rainfall and 
temperature. Mountain masses and plateaus above 5,000 feet ele¬ 
vation, by reason of their cooler temperature and greater rainfall, 
are in large part forested, often very densely so. The valleys of inter¬ 
mediate elevation below the forested zone are covered in season with 
grasses and oftentimes with drought-resistant perennials. These 
decrease in amount and value as the altitudes grow less, and the con- 
ditions become most extreme toward the Colorado River. The 
narrow ribbons of watered soil along the rivers, widened here and 
there by artificial means, support a dense and luxuriant growth of 
vegetation which is largely subtropical in character and indicative 
of rich returns to the irrigator when the natural resources of climate, 
soil, and water are administered effectively. 

[Bull. 235] 


14 


INDUSTRIES. 

The principal industries of Arizona are mining, stock raising, 
agriculture, and transportation. Copper is the principal metal 
mined, the Territory having led the States of the Union with a smelter 
output of 256,778,437 pounds in 1907, and of 289,523,267 pounds in 
1908. 1 The production of copper in Arizona up to the end of 1909 
totals about 3,000,000,000 pounds, with a value approximating 
$400,000,000. 

Stock raising on the open range, principally sheep and cattle, is a 
very important industry, notwithstanding the great decline in graz¬ 
ing values since 1893. The problems of range administration are 
now being worked out in the forest reserves of the Territory, which 
on December 31, 1910, embraced about 14,811,145 acres of important 
watershed areas wholly or partially forested. 

Agriculture, the youngest of the three principal industries of the 
Territory, is just entering upon a period of rapid advancement both 
in the areas cultivated and in the intensity of the cultural methods 
employed. The fluctuating flows of the irrigating streams, with 
consequent failures of water supply at critical times and unmanage¬ 
able floods at others, have heretofore restricted and discouraged the 
operations of irrigation farmers. The installation of the two great 
Reclamation Service projects, one in the Salt River Valley and the 
other on the Colorado River near Yuma, and the consequent storage 
and regulation of the principal irrigating water supplies of the Terri¬ 
tory, will soon enable a majority of Arizona farmers to work with 
their moisture conditions under perfect control. Certainty of crop 
returns, the diversity of crops possible, the all-year growing season of 
the southern valleys, and the intensive methods will lead to high and 
varied productiveness, with land values far above those of the average 
humid regions of the United States. 

By reason of its isolation, Arizona is dependent upon its transpor¬ 
tation facilities to an unusual degree. These consist chiefly of three 
great railroad systems, which, in order of their construction, are the 
Southern Pacific, the Santa Fe, and the El Paso & Southwestern. 
The Santa Fe crosses the northern tier of counties from east to west, 
and with its branches opens up the mining and lumbering districts 
of the more elevated half of the Territory. The Southern Pacific runs 
a roughly parallel course south of the Gila River, and its feeders tap 
the rich mining districts and the warmer irrigated valleys at lower 
altitudes. The El Paso & Southwestern road affords an outlet for 
the copper mines of southeastern Arizona and northern Mexico. A 
few steamboats of shallow draft ply the Colorado River, and in remote 
localities freighting with teams is still practiced. 

' U. S. Geol. Survey, “Mineral Resources of the United States,’’ 1908, pt. 1, pp. 194,195. 

[Bull. 235] 




15 


ASSESSED VALUATION AND POPULATION. 

The assessed valuation of Arizona property in 1910 was as follows: 1 

Assessed valuation , 1910. 


Land and improvements. $12, 624, 759. 90 

All mining property. 19, 714, 592. 16 . 

Town and city lots and improvements. 24, 957, 628. 36 

All live stock. 7, 480, 050. 00 

Railroads. 13, 224, 292. 04 

All other property. 9, 912, 049. 04 


Total. 87,913,371.50 


These valuations are notably low, due to the difficulties incident to 
the assessment of mines and live stock and to the prevailing custom 
of rating realty, merchandise, improvements, etc., at one-third to 
one-lialf of their actual worth. 

The census of 1910 records 204,354 people in the Territory , of which 
about 26,000 are Indians. The greater part of the population consists 
of those who have immigrated to the Territory from other States and 
countries during comparatively recent years and of Mexicans native 
to the Southwest. 

CLIMATE. 

The climatic zone within which Arizona chiefly lies may be roughly 
defined as one which combines a low rainfall with a very high per¬ 
centage of possible sunshine, a long, hot season, frosty minimum 
temperatures in winter, and usually a very low atmospheric humidity. 

The region of smallest rainfall extends along the Colorado River, 
the mean annual at Yuma for 38 years being 3.13 inches and at Fort 
Mohave for 37 years being 5.07 inches. Precipitation increases grad¬ 
ually with elevation east of the river until average maxima of over 20 
inches are recorded at the higher stations. The following table shows 
the average annual precipitation in the three'most important watersheds: 


Elevation and average annual precipitation of points in Arizona . 2 


Watershed. 

Period. 

Eleva¬ 

tion. 

Average 

annual 

rainfall. 

Colorado—northern Arizona: 

Fort Mohave. 

Years. 

37 

Feet. 

004 

Inches. 

5.07 

Flagstaff. 

17 

6,907 
5,069 
6,500 

23. 87 

Holbrook. 

19 

8. 99 

Fort Defiance. 

15 

14. 01 

Salt River—central Arizona: 

Phoenix. 

31 

1,108 

1.800 

5,320 

5,200 

141 

7. 27 

Camp McDowell. 

23 

10. 38 

Prescott.. . 

40 

17. 40 

Fort Apache. 

32 

18. 90 

Gila River—southern Arizona: 

Yuma. 

38 

3. 13 

Maricopa.•. 

31 

1,173 

2,390 

5,500 

5. 83 

Tucson. . 

40 

11. 66 

Bis bee .... . 

18 

17. 46 



1 Proceedings of the Territorial Board of Equalization of Arizona, 1910. 

2 U. S. Dept. Agr., Weather Bur., Summary of Climatological Data for the United States, secs. 3-4. 


[Bull. 235] 

































16 


% 


The seasonal distribution of the rainfall varies in different portions 
of the Territory. In the central and western districts the winter 
rains exceed those of -summer, thus favoring the growth of certain 
winter-growing annuals; while in the southeastern region summer 
rains predominate, supporting the grasses which constitute the best 
wild forages. 

With respect to temperature and seasons, the Territory may be 
divided into two distinct regions. The northeastern and more 
elevated half, although semiarid, is comparatively cool, being frost 
bound in winter and having temperate summers. The southwestern 
and lower half may be described as arid-subtropical. The summers 
are ardent and prolonged, but occasional moderate frosts are known 
in winter. The mildness of the winters and the length of the sum¬ 
mers make possible an all-year succession of crops in southern 
Arizona, a circumstance which with irrigation will lead to a highly 
intensive cultural development of that region. The following mean 
maximum and minimum records, representative of the Territory, are 
sufficient for illustration: 


Mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures f or Prescott and Yuma . 1 * 


Month. 


January... 
February. 
March.... 

April. 

May. 

June. 

July. 

August... 
September 
October... 
November. 
December. 


Maximum. 

Minimum. 

Prescott. 3 

Yuma. 

Prescott. 

Yuma. 

0 F. 

O Jf > 

o F 

° F. 

46.9 

64.7 

20.7 

42.0 

51.6 

70.5 

24.3 

43.8 

57.8 

77.8 

29.9 

50.3 

65.3 

85.3 

36.2 

55. 2 

75.2 

93. 5 

42.5 

61.6 

84.2 

101.2 

48.7 

68.7 

88. 1 

106.3 

59.0 

77. 4 

84.9 

104.7 

58.0 

77.8 

80.3 

99.2 

48.8 

70. 3 

69.0 

86.3 

38.2 

58.5 

57.4 

73.9 

27.1 

48. 6 

51.2 

68.0 

26.4 

46.0 


1 Arizona Sta. Bui. 20, p. 20. 

2 Altitude of Prescott, 5,320 feet; Yuma, 141 feet. 


The daily range of temperature averages about 30° F. and in dry, 
clear weather it may reach 50° F. occasionally. The extremes of 
temperature at inhabited points thus far noted are as follows: At 
St. Michaels, —24° F.; at Parker, 127° F. 1 

The dearth of vegetal covering in the desert regions, the dry air, 
and the clear skies favor rapid radiation of heat at night. The 
drainage of cooled air to lower levels further increases the effect of 
radiation, and the valleys are therefore subject to frosts. In some 
localities frosts are so late and so variable in time of occurrence as 
to interfere seriously with the growing of certain fruits sensitive to 
cold. However, the rise and fall of temperatures are rapid and the 


1 U. S. Dept. Agr., Summary of Climatological Data for the United States, sec. 4, p. 7, 

[Bull. 235] 



































17 


duration of the extremes is short. Low minima of short duration 
in arid regions, therefore, do less harm than the same temperatures 
in more humid regions where a certain minimum indicates much 
longer exposure to killing cold. 

The relative humidity is usually low, being least during June, when 
temperatures are high and rainfall small. Relative humidities of less 
than 10 per cent are often recorded in June, the annual average for 
four years at Phoenix being 35 per cent. 1 The so-called dry rains of 
Arizona, which are of common occurrence during the summer season, 
attest the extreme aridity of the air at certain times. These “ horse¬ 
tail" showers start at a few thousand feet altitude, but are entirely 
evaporated and disappear before reaching the earth. 

Wind movement is light ordinarily, averaging from 2.4 miles an 
hour at Phoenix to 6.9 miles at Prescott. 2 This is a fortunate 
circumstance in connection with the heat and aridity of the summer 
season. Dust storms of a few to several hours duration are known, 
usually during March, April, and May. Thunderstorms occur for 
the most part in summer. Deep snow falls at higher altitudes, and 
light snowfall on rare occasions lies in the southern valleys for a short 
time. Hail storms cause occasional damage, but tornadoes are 
unknown. 

Sunshine percentages are very high, over 80 per cent of the possible 
being the rule in southern Arizona. Wholly cloudy days are rare. 
The intense insolation of clear, hot, summer weather is a serious 
factor in connection with more sensitive crop plants, and shading 
devices often are employed to advantage. 

CROPS. 

The northeastern and more elevated part of Arizona, with cold 
winters and a moderately warm growing season of six to seven 
months, produces such crops as are grown in the Mississippi Valley 
in the latitude of the Ohio River. Apples, peaches, pears, cherries, 
grapes, and other deciduous fruits and berries are very successful 
with, and sometimes without, irrigation, but the winters are too 
cold for the subtropical evergreens, such as oranges, olives, euca¬ 
lyptus trees, and palms. A satisfactory variety of forage and grain 
crops does well on the plateau. Alfalfa yields two or three cuttings 
and additional pasturage. Corn, oats, barley, wheat,' and rye produce 
heavily under irrigation, and by dry-farming methods, with proper 
selection of varieties, are thought to be capable of remunerative 
returns in favorable localities with rainfall only. Vegetables of 
various kinds are grown in season in profusion, according to eleva¬ 
tion, soil, and moisture available. Flagstaff, with an elevation of 

i Arizona Sta. Bui. 41, p. 11; Bui. 48, p. 355. 2 Arizona Sta. Bui. 20, pp. 36 and 37. 

72293°—Bull. 235—11-2 






18 


6,907 feet, is locally famous for its Irish potato crops, although the 
acreage is limited. Other small towns along the Little Colorado and 
its tributaries are distinguished for their comfortable homes and 
small well-kept farms. 

The principal grazing industry of northern Arizona is sheep raising. 
The flocks of the Territory in 1909 numbered about 1,100,000 head. 
A considerable number of sheep are driven to southern valleys in 
the winter for feed, for lambing, and to be shorn. 

Under the provisions of the Forest Service lumber also may be 
counted among the crops of this region. The forest reserves, which 
now cover all timber not owned privately, are lumbered under 
expert supervision. Only mature timber may be cut, and the 
younger trees are thus permitted to expand into the spaces left by 
the removal of the old ones. 

In the southern and western parts of Arizona the great valleys of 
the Gila, Salt, and Colorado Rivers are distinguished by their extreme 
conditions of temperature, insolation, small rainfall, and low humidity. 
These cultural factors enter into varying combinations at different 
times of the year, thereby causing a succession of growing seasons, 
each of which is most favorable to certain crops, comparatively few 
of them being equally hardy to all the climatic combinations. Cor¬ 
responding to these seasons crop plants of the region may be classified 
into: (1) Those which are sensitive to extreme heat, but which endure 
frost; (2) those which are destroyed by frost, but are favored by a long 
hot growing season; (3) those which are sensitive to extremes of heat 
and cold; and (4) those which are hardy throughout the entire year. 
To the class which endures frost, but which is sensitive to heat, belong 
many garden vegetables, such as lettuce, onions, cabbage, cauliflower, 
beets, and turnips; grains, including wheat, oats, and barley; and 
certain legumes, among which are sour clover, lupines, and peas. 
These frost-hardy crops are planted ordinarily in early fall and 
harvested in the spring or early summer. A great advantage with 
their culture is that they grow during the cool season when irrigation 
water usually is more abundant and labor more comfortable and 
effective. 

The hot-weather crops, which make their growth after danger from 
spring frosts is over and before the frosts of autumn, include tomatoes, 
melons, squashes, pumpkins, corn, Kafir corn, sorghum, tobacco, 
cotton, strawberries, peaches, plums, apricots, almonds, apples, and 
pears. 

Those crops which make their growth after severe frosts in spring 
and before extreme hot weather include beans, potatoes, summer 
squashes, cucumbers, and asparagus. These may usually be sown 
in the mid-fall season, although less successfully because of shorter 
time before frost. 

[Bull. 235] 


19 


Chief among the crop plants which are hardy and grow nearly or* 
qidte the year round is alfalfa, which in the southern and western 
parts of Arizona produces five to eight cuttings of hay besides afford¬ 
ing two to four months’ pasture, and may be made to produce remu¬ 
nerative yields of seed. It is valuable not only for its yield of hay, 
pasture, and feed, but, by virtue of its contributions of needed 
nitrogen and organic matter to the desert soils, as a preparation for 
other crops. 

Palms, including the date, the Canary Island, and the Washing- 
tonia, are among the best and most vigorous subtropical evergreens, 
hardy both to climate and to alkaline or swampy soils. The olive, 
although somewhat affected by extremes of heat and cold in southern 
Arizona, is valuable both as an ornament and for its fruit and being 
drought-resistant and growing in almost any kind of soil, it may be 
found feasible for cheap lands with a scanty and precarious water 
supply. Several species of Eucalyptus which are resistant to heat 
and cold have been introduced successfully, especially E. rostrata, E. 
tereticornis, E. polyanthema , E. leucoxylon, E. rudis , and E. crebra. 
The deep-rooting habit of these trees, their rapid growth, and their 
many uses point to them as a means of foresting low-lying valleys 
having an attainable underflow. Citrus trees—orange, grape fruit, 
and lemon—although more sensitive to frost than date palms, olives, 
and some eucalypts, prosper fairly well in the comparatively frostless 
belts, especially those of the Colorado River country and the Salt 
River Valley. The earliness of Arizona oranges, the first of which 
are several weeks in advance of the southern California crop, is a com¬ 
mercial advantage, the highest market prices being obtained during 
November and December for the first shipments. Figs and pome¬ 
granates, although deciduous, may be included with this list of trees 
by reason of their subtropical character. They are both extremely 
alkali-resistant, and the pomegranate endures drought also. 

The following partial list of fruits, vegetables, and forages which 
mature in different months in southern Arizona may be of interest to 
prospective settlers: 


Fruits , vegetables, and forages grown in southern Arizona. 


Months in which 
they mature. 

Fruits. 

Vegetables. 

Grains and forages. 

January. 

February. 

M arrh 

Oranges and pomelos. 

Oranges. 

Strawberries. 

Lettuce, spinach, radishes, 
cauliflower. 

Lettuce, bee is, turnips, 
cabbage. 

Asparagus, carrots, green 
onions. 

Peas, cabbage, lettuce, on- 

Alfalfa and barley pasture. 

Do. 

Alfalfa and green barley. 

Do. 

April. 

Strawberries and mulber- 

May. 

ries. 

Strawberries, blackberries, 

ions. 

Green corn, new potatoes, 
squashes, string beans. 

Wheat, barley, oats, al- 

plums, apricots, peaches. 

falfa. 

June. 

Strawberries, blackberries, 

Squashes, cucumbers, on- 

Alfalfa, corn. 


figs, plums, apricots, to¬ 
matoes, melons, peaches. 

ions. 



[Bull. 235] 





















20 


Fruits , vegetables, and forages grown in southern Arizona —Continued. 


Months in which 
they mature. 

Fruits. 

Vegetables. 

Grains and forages. 

July. 

Apples, pears, grapes, figs, 
peaches. 

Sugar beets, cucumbers.... 

Alfalfa, cowpeas. 

August. 

Grapes, figs, pears, al¬ 
monds, peaches. 

Chillies,eggplant, beans... 

Alfalfa, Egyptian corn, sor¬ 
ghum, cowpeas. 

Alfalfa, Egyptian corn,cow¬ 
peas, sorghum. 

September.^. 

Dates, melons, pears, 
grapes, pomegranates, 
peaches. 

Chillies, eggplant, pota¬ 
toes, beans. 

October. 

Dates, quinces, grapes, 
pears, apples. 

Cucumbers, squashes, 
string beans. 

Alfalfa, sorghum, millet, 
Indian corn, cowpeas. 

November. 

Dates, olives, grapes, 
oranges, pears, straw¬ 
berries. 

Celery, lettuce, beans, 
squashes, potatoes. 

Indian corn, sorghum, al¬ 
falfa. 

December. 

Dates, olives, oranges, 
pears. 

Celery, radishes, beets, 
lettuce. 

Alfalfa pasture. 


Under irrigation the yields of the crops best adapted to the region 
are high, especially where the soil has been improved by alfalfa and 
by beneficial river sediments. Some verified records made under fair 
conditions, collected from time to time in various localities, are as 
follows: 

Yields per acre of various crops in southern Arizona. 


Crops. 

Yield. 

Crops. 

Yield. 

Alfalfa hay, 4 to 8 

6 to 12 tons. 

Cabbage. 

14,000 pounds. 

cuttings. 


Onions. 

5,000 to 20,000 pounds. 

Alfalfa, seed crop, 1 

65 to 650 pounds. 

Tomatoes. 

10,000 to 27,000 pounds. 

cutting. 


Cantaloups. 

100 to 345 standard crates. 

Barley. 

1,800 to 2,500 pounds. 

Strawberries. 

3,500 to 14,000 f-lb. boxes. 

Wheat. 

1,500 to 2,400 pounds. 

Egyptian cotton lint 

400 to 1,000 pounds. 

Barley hay. 

4 tons. 

Corn. 

2,000 to 2,800 pounds. 

Wheat hay. 

3t tons. 

Sfiftdlfiss raisins 

6,000 to 8,000 pounds. 

£ to 5 boxes per tree. 

Sugar beets. 

9 to 19 tons. 

Oranges (young 

Potatoes. 

3,000 to 15,000 pounds. 

trees). 

Watermelons. 

13 tons. 

Dates. 

50 to 250 pounds per tree. 


Steer feeding, dairying, poultry keeping, horse and mule breeding, 
apiculture, and sheep raising are the final and usually the most profit¬ 
able development of forage production, and the greater part of the 
forage output of the Territory finds a market in the form of animal 
products. 


MARKETS AND FARM INCOME. 

CULTIVATED CROPS. 

A large trade in valley products is maintained with the several 
thriving mining towns of Arizona, which consume large quantities of 
baled hay, grains, fruits, dairy products, and vegetables. Southern 
California cities take fat cattle, early fruits, and vegetables. Much 
finished live stock reaches Kansas City, and more distant eastern 
markets receive oranges, cantaloups, honey, and other agricultural 
commodities from Arizona through farmers’ shipping associations. 

[Bull. 235] 














































21 


The income per acre to the farmer varies greatly with the char¬ 
acter ol his operations. Small, intensively cultivated areas not infre¬ 
quently yield values from $100 to $300 gross per acre annually, whib 
forages and animals may easily return $50 gross per acre annually. 
Agricultural statistics for 1910 1 indicate that from 183,000 acres of 
corn, wheat, oats, barley, and hay a total valuation of $5,302,000 
was obtained, or an average of $28.97 per crop per acre. This does 
not include the value of alfalfa seed and pasture produced to an 
additional value of fully $500,000. When allowance is made for 
the fact that corn in large part follows barley and wheat on the 
same ground, the actual productiveness in grains and forages of 
Arizona lands was more than $30 per irrigated acre. Intensive 
cultures, including fruits, melons, vegetables, and sugar beets, from 
an estimated 11,000 acres produced about $2,000,000 worth of prod¬ 
ucts, or about $200 per acre. The total of 194,000 irrigated acres 
estimated therefore produced values approximating $7,802,000, an 
average of about $40 per acre. This estimate places Arizona among 
the first of the Commonwealths of the Union in values per acre pro¬ 
duced, a fact due not only to excellent crops, but to the high prices 
paid in the home markets of the Territory. 

LIVE STOCK. 

The number, value, and income-producing power of live stock in 
Arizona on January 1, 1910, were approximately as follows: 


Kinds, number, value, and income from live stock in Arizona, January 1, 1910. 


Kinds. 

Number. 1 

Value. 2 

Income (gross sales during 1909). 2 

Amount. 

From— 

norses and mules. 

Milch cows. 

Other cattle. 

Sheep. 

Hogs. 

Total. 

121,000 
25,000 
626,000 
1,020,000 
22,000 

$7,778,000 

1,075,000 

12,082,000 

3,774,000 

209,000 

$185,670 
1,000,000 
5,659,261 
4,260,000 
500,000 

Sales. 

Dairy products at $40. 

Beef and veal. 

Wool and mutton. 

Pork. 

1,814,000 

24,918,000 

11,604,931 


1 U. S. Dept. Agr., Crop Reporter, Feb. 7, 1910. 

2 Estimates based on reports of Live Stock Sanitary Commission and current valuations by stockmen. 


Besides these there were 5,000 ostriches valued at $1,000,000 and 
producing $125,000 worth of feathers annually. The number of goats, 
poultry, and stands of bees or the value of their products is not known. 

While the live-stock industry as a whole is but partly supported by 
irrigation, the irrigated valleys may be considered an essential factor, 
especially in dairying and the finishing of cattle and sheep for market. 


[Bull. 235] 


1 U. S. Dept. Agr., Crop Reporter, Dec. 22, 1910. 


























» 


22 


FOREST PRODUCTS 

The forests of Arizona should also be included in a broad sense as an 
agricultural resource, timber being a product of the soil. The pine 
forests of northern Arizona constitute a timber resource of great 
value, as yet little encroached upon. Large mills at Williams and 
Flagstaff have been in operation for nearly 30 years and small mills 
are scattered at accessible locations elsewhere in the Territory. 
These mills own considerable forest land which they are now clearing. 
One of the largest sawmill operators in the Territory states that the 
annual cut of lumber in northern Arizona is approximately 50,000,000 
feet, with a market value of $750,000. The major portion of the 
forests, however, is included within National Forests. Timber is 
available within these reserves under Forest Service restrictions, 
which prevent destructive lumbering. 

The stand of merchantable timber thus available for cutting 
in Arizona, according to available (October, 1909) Forest Service 
estimates, is as follows: Saw timber, 6,263,800 M feet; cordwood, 
14,142,604 cords. Figuring conservatively upon an approximate 
annual increase of 1 per cent for saw timber and lj per cent for cord- 
wood, the annual growth for Arizona would be—saw timber, 62,638 
M feet, worth, at $3.25 per M, $203,573, and 188,520 cords of cord- 
wood, worth, at 67 cents a cord, $126,308, making a total output of 
$329,881. 

The National Forest income realized from timber and grazing fees 
in 1910 was $204,917.52, one-fourth, or $51,229.38, of which was 
turned over to the Territory for use by the various counties within 
which the forests lie, and used by them for the benefit of their roads 
and public schools. In addition to native forests the planting of 
introduced trees, especially Eucalyptus, offers considerable oppor¬ 
tunities in agricultural forestry. 

LANDS. 

CLASSIFICATION FOR ADMINISTRATION. 

Including a limited and variable water surface of approximately 
116 square miles, the area of Arizona is about 72,931,840 acres. (PI. 
I.) Administratively this area is divided into military reserves, Indian 
reserves, National monuments and forests, public lands, including 
those under Reclamation Service restrictions, and lands in private 
ownership, including railroad grants and private land grants dating 
from Mexican occupation. The areas of these different classes of 
lands are approximately as follows: 

[Bull. 235] 


t 


U. S. Dept, of Agr., Bui. 235, Office of Expt. Stations. Irrig. 


PLATE I. 



West Trorn uroenwith 




■ODHiD. 


W PIJJ TJE | 
_>/INDIAN! RESERVE 


,\V I 


HAIBAB 


•ARIA 


V INDIAN RjtS 


PLAT EAU 


PLATEAU 


NATIONAL MONUMENT 


KAlfcAB 


NATIONAL .FOREST 


GRAff© CANYON d 

E'1 /|’l game presIrvj 


NAVAJO 


NAVAJO 


NATIONAL 


INDIAN RESERVATION 


INDIAN RESERVATION 


fore^: 


Rational 


DIXIE 


KhQPI iCMQQUO 


cxxcCTmol 


> ALA *A I 
MESA 


'ndian Preservation. 


ational 


] HUA'LPAI "T"'"., 

'i INDIAN RESERVATION 


7//77//rr/nw&r/7//>/7>77/?f,vr/77/rr/7?A'?s.7r#/7} 


CHLdRlO£ 




//LL/AMS 


ONGAfAW 


'HARDW/LLi f 


ONSLOW 


0A7MAN 


adamana 


<OLBRQOH 


ii£*5 

PETP-FifD FORES* 

I 

.NATIONAL, 


WILLIAMSON 

VALLEY 


WOODRUFF' 


Lx 




JFROt 




HUNT 






xSWityFLAKF 


SITGREAVES 


POLAND 1 


NATIONAL FOREST 


NATIONAL 


IONTO 


-,_iflOWV M/N6*^ s 


OREST 


NATfI 0 NAL -FORE 

•'V *•».. ST 


7A/|'T/||. 


CHE 


FTMftqiVa 

w 


;amP M< DOWELL 
INO RES 


1 C R 0*0^ 
N AT ’L 
F’.O REST 


AT 1 ON A 


HA POOA HA LA 


WHIT 


3UCHFVF 1 


ARL/NGFONa 


SAN CARLOS 


iuu'ji u'JUUlUiilWt'l 


beA'o ^ . 
TM-< 


tesu/t&j*/ 
[/FJON ' 


'JUUUuUIlu; 


"UUUUUCUOUUL'L 


lAKrfMC 


GTOTTOJI 


AiFCt Ramse (m n) 


INO. RES 


P/AfA 


| HMC 

FT.CfUNT 
MIL RE! 


■ftoqBmcu. 


A NAfL,,. | 

n,jisl sT 


'l|Fii^,v 


; ... 


PAPAGO 
INOIAN AES 


JCORONADO | 

i. 2 

i f 

J NATS. //L-i 


TitT/O 


c6ronaoo 

inat'L 


TW/N BUT) 


LEGEND 

3«) County Seats 

-County Boundaries 

|^T| National Forests 
L ^National Monuments 
fTm National Game Preserve 

1 3 ^ * nd ’ an Reserves 


FOREST 


CIMM£S?p* 


?////> 




'Ifi.r 

.arcEs - 

NAT’L FORE' 


] garceS 


'OREST r.j 


U. S Reclamation Service Projects 


smart *1/1 tS 


C.M.Fr 


West froio Wabhin<jton 


BOCO" 


and Administrative Division of Lands 


Map of Arizona Showing Streams 


■hi 

. * 


_/ 1 \ \ 

N i< 

W 



% NATIONAL^ jL 

l FOREST I r 

% 8 

A fc ^L, 




..y 























































































































































































































* 


■- 

■ 











• • ■ 

' 





’ 


• „ • 




. • 


, 



























































23 


Lands in Arizona. 


Class. 

Area. 

Authority. 

Date of infor¬ 
mation. 

Military reserves. 

Acres. 

97,932 

15,055,600 

14,083,928 

61,726 

United States Department of War... 
Scaled from General Land Office 
map. 

Forest Service Circular 167 and cor¬ 
respondence. 

Report of Secretary of Interior. 

Aug. 17,1908. 

Indian reserves.... 

National Forests exclusive of alienated 
lands. 1 

National monuments outside of Na- 

u o. 

Dec. 13,1909. 

1909. 

tional Forests and Indian reserves. 



Total reserves. 

29,299,186 




’ 


Railroad land grants. 

2,141,435 

547,282 

939,142 
90,000 

8,000 

34.000 

Proceedings Territorial board of 
equalization. 

.do. 

Aug., 1909. 

Do 

Spanish grants and transferred railroad 

lands. 

Small agricultural holdings. 

.do. 

Do. 

1908-9. 

1908-9. 

1908-9. 

Patented mining claims. 

Estimated from Proceedings terri¬ 
torial board of equalization, 
do 

Town lots. 

Railroad rights of way. 

.do.. 



Total in private ownership ex¬ 
clusive of unpatented mining 
claims. 

3,759,859 

39,273,755 



Unappropriated and unreserved public 
lands, by difference—including a 
portion of the lands under United 
States ReclamationService restrictions. 




1 The total area of National Forests has been reduced from 15,258,861 to 14,811,1-45 acres. Figures as to 
the areas of alienated lands included are not available at this date. 


This statement does not include approximately 4,130,100 acres of 
public lands partly within National Forests and Indian reserves sub¬ 
ject to United States Reclamation Service restrictions. Of this area 
1,818,300 acres, withdrawn under the first form, can not be entered 
upon, while the remaining 2,311,800 acres, withdrawn under the 
second form, may be homesteaded, subject to subsequent decision as 
to the size of farm unit allowed. University and school lands are not 
considered separately. 

Under the “dry farming” or “enlarged homestead” act, 26,657,280 
acres of the unappropriated and unreserved public lands (fig. 3) also 
have been designated in Arizona as available in 320-acre holdings 
(November 1, 1910). It is evident, from the above table and state¬ 
ments, that the land situation in Arizona is very complex, and the 
following brief suggestions are therefore offered as to the acquisition 
by settlers of lands within the Territory. 

METHODS OF ACQUIRING LAND. 

UNRESERVED PUBLIC LANDS. 

Without going exhaustively into details, the unreserved and unap¬ 
propriated public lands available under the various provisions of the 
land laws may be obtained in the following forms: 

(1) The homestead of 160 acres, requiring for final proof either 
five years’ residence or 14 months’ residence with commutation at 
SI.25 to S2.50 per acre. 

[Bull. 235J 








































24 


(2) The homestead of 320 acres, for nonirrigable lands which lack 

sufficient rainfall to produce crops without the system of cultivation 

commonlv known as “dry farming.” Proof without commutation 

privileges is made as in ordinary homestead entry, and one-fourth 

of the entry must be cultivated continuously, beginning with the 

third year. 

%/ 

(3) The desert land entry of 320 acres costing 25 cents an acre on 
entry and $1 an acre annually expended in improvements as evidence 
of good faith until reclaimed, with $1 per acre in cash to the Govern¬ 
ment on final proof. 

(4) Government land scrip entries, costing from a few dollars to 

as much as $50 an 
acre. Scrip sometimes 
is difficult to obtain. 

(5) School lands, 
which thus far have 
been leased of the 
Territory, subject to 
appraisement in value 
and purchase when 
Arizona becomes a 
State. 

(6) For special pur¬ 


poses, as reservoir 
sites for impounding 
water, canals, railroad 
rights of way, etc., 
public lands may be 
appropriated so long 
as they are used in 
good faith for the pur¬ 
pose for which they 
w r ere appropriated. 



CWD£/t 


Fig. 3.—Lands subject to entry under the “ dry-farm ” act. 


(7) As mining claims, mill sites, etc., in accordance with the 
mineral laws. 


RESERVED PUBLIC LANDS AND RAILROAD LANDS. 

Military and Indian reserves, national monuments, and United 
States Reclamation Service reserves of the first form are inaccessible 
to settlers; but in some cases are likely at a future time to be thrown 
open wholly or in part to entry. Certain of these reserves are of 
value to irrigation interests as watershed protectors. The Fort 
Apache and White Mountain reserves, for instance, covering approxi¬ 
mately 5,500 square miles, lie in the watershed of the Salt and Gila 

[Bull. 235] 






































25 


Rivers, and conserve and equalize the flow of those important streams. 
Similarly, the immense but less forested Navajo Indian Reservation 
may protect a fraction of the Colorado watershed to some extent. 

More extensive and important in its relation to irrigation interests 
is the great system of National Forests, formerly known as forest 
reserves, which, beginning with the Prescott Reserve in 1S99, has 
grown to a total area of about 15,000,000 acres, comprising all the 
forest lands in the Territory otherwise unadministered. The National 
Forests are available for timber, for grazing, for mining, for building 
and town sites, and for agriculture, under provisions securing the non¬ 
destructive use of forest values. Wherever agricultural lands are 
included within a National Forest they may be listed and entered upon 
by settlers on practically the same terms as ordinary homestead lands. 

The map of Arizona (PI. II) shows the several Indian reservations, 
National monuments, etc., as given on the General Land Office map 
of 1909. The map has been revised so as to show the forest reserves 
as they existed December 31, 1910. 

Considerable areas, mostly along the Colorado River, have been 
temporarily withdrawn from homestead entry pending investigations 
as to whether these areas can be ultimately irrigated or utilized in 
constructing irrigation works. These withdrawals are often only for 
short periods, and it is not possible to show them on the map with 
any degree of accuracy. 

United States Reclamation Service reserves of the second form may 
be homesteaded under the United States Reclamation Service regu¬ 
lations, the land laws having been modified so that farm units of 10 
to 160 acres, according to the value and productiveness of the land, 
may be fixed upon as the limit of the entry by the Secretary of the 
Interior. Commutation privileges do not apply to such entries. 

Railroad land grants, more particularly those belonging to the 
Santa Fe system, are subject to purchase at prices ranging easily from 
$10 to $200 an acre for unimproved agricultural land favorably situ¬ 
ated with reference to irrigating water. 

AGRICULTURAL CLASSIFICATION OF LANDS. 

According to the general methods by which they may be utilized, 
the lands of the Territory may be classed as irrigable, dry-farming, 
"razing, forest, and waste lands. There are considerable tracts of the 
latter under present conditions. 

Except along the Colorado River, lands valuable because of their 
connection with an actual or possible irrigating or stock water supply 
have for the most part long since passed into private hands. This 
area is represented by the 939,142 acres shown in the table, page 23, 
and lies almost entirely along valley bottoms adjacent to stream 

[Bull. 235] 


26 


courses. The extensive and fertile Colorado Valley is as yet little 
settled, except under the United States Reclamation Service project 
near Yuma. This is partly because of the reserved areas situated on 
this river, but chiefly because of the great annual summer flood and 
the unmanageable character of the stream. When finally reclaimed 
by the great engineering projects now under construction or contem¬ 
plation, the Colorado Valley probably will be one of the most pro¬ 
ductive agricultural regions within the national boundaries. 

Dry farming—that is, farming on rainfall with special attention to 
the conservation of soil moisture—is apparently feasible in consider¬ 
able but undetermined areas in the eastern and northern parts of the 
Territory. In the lower southwestern valleys, excepting during years 
of unusually abundant or timely rainfall, ordinary dry-farming 
methods must at least be supplemented by irrigation, and by a careful 
choice of drought-resistant crop plants and trees especially suited to 
more severe conditions. 

The grazing industries, both cattle and sheep, are at present accom¬ 
modated in National Forests, upon Indian reserves, and upon unap¬ 
propriated and unreserved Government lands—the so-called open 
range. Within the National Forests and the Indian reserves the 
number of cattle and sheep is under Government regulation, the 
object being to prevent overstocking and consequent deterioration. 
The open range, however, is thus far without supervision, and by 
virtue of the inapplicability of the homestead laws to range country, 
without ownership also. Lack of ownership and of proper regulation 
has led to overstocking the ranges during favorable seasons or 
when prices did not encourage shipment, and when dry years ensue 
from time to time there are enormous losses, especially of cattle, 
which are most sensitive to a shortage of feed and water. At 
these times not only animals suffer, but the ranges themselves some¬ 
times are bared of vegetation and depleted beyond the possibility of 
complete recovery. Stock raising has been a precarious business 
because of these conditions. Fortunes have been made during suc¬ 
cessions of rainy years and lost during the seasons of drought that 
followed. Under the present lack of administrative control of the 
open range there is little or no opportunity for further expansion of 
the grazing industries. Properly controlled, however, with reference 
to the exigencies of nature and the necessities of individual stockmen, 
the open range is undoubtedly capable of industrial restoration. 
The National Forests, including about 14,811,145 acres on December 
31, 1910, are probably not more than 50 per cent continuously for¬ 
ested, the remaining area being but sparsely covered with trees, and 
even the continuous forests often being interspersed with open parks 
and glades. These unforested portions of the reserves are of interest 

[Bull. 235] 


27 


to settlers, Inasmuch as they may be homesteaded for agricultural 
purposes. Adjacent to purchasable timber and grazing privileges, 
and oftentimes with small but protected water supply, these forest- 
reserve locations are usually very desirable. In the northeastern 
plateau country, also, there are considerable areas of dry-farming 
lands available for homestead entry within the National Forests. 

The waste lands of Arizona are for the most part situated in the 
western third of the Territory, excluding the Colorado and tributary 
ri'.er bottoms. This vast desert expanse of over 30,000 square miles 
must always remain waste country, except for doubtful artesian pos¬ 
sibilities. There is almost no running water in this region, springs 
and tinajas are few, and the ground water usually is far below the 
surface. On rare occasions brief violent storms give rise to short¬ 
lived torrents, and are followed by a transient flush of desert annuals, 
but this can not be utilized by stockmen, because of its distance from 
dependable forage supply and from water. These desert plains and 
hostile mountains, peopled with curious and exaggerated forms of 
drought-resistant vegetation, offer no inducements to the agricul¬ 
tural settler, being a temptation only to the prospector, the naturalist, 
and the adventurer. 

Summarizing briefly, the more apparent opportunities for immigrant 
farmers in Arizona are: (1) By purchase in irrigated valleys, mainly 
those of the Salt, Gila, and Colorado Fivers; (2) by homesteading 
Government lands under Reclamation Service projects and in National 
Forests; and (3) by homesteading unappropriated and unreserved 
public lands in localities apparently favorable to dry farming and to 
development by pumping. 

SOILS. 

The character of the irrigable valley soils is very variable, both in 
physical and chemical particulars. Physically, they vary chiefly 
through the agency of the waters by which they were transported from 
distant points and through the influence of near-by mountain masses. 
Coarser soils usually are found nearest the slopes contributing to 
their formation, where they were deposited from flood waters of higher 
velocities. Heavy adobe soils, formed of the finest materials, are 
deposited chiefly through the action of comparatively quiet waters, 
and at points distant from the place of their origin. In some locali¬ 
ties a caliche or calcareous hardpan, formed slowly through the agency 
of scant rainfall and evaporation, underlies the surface of soils which 
have remained long in place. The deficiency in humus usual in 
desert soils is an unfavorable character, in so far as it decreases the 
water-holding power, injures the tilth, augments losses by erosion, 
and increases extremes of soil temperature. 

[Bull. 235] 


28 


Chemically, the arid soils of the Southwest are rich in lime and 
potash, but deficient in organic matter and nitrogen. These defi¬ 
ciencies may be remedied very cheaply in Arizona by means of 
leguminous plants, including peas, lupines, sour clover, bur clover, 
and, chief of all, alfalfa. The latter crop yields remunerative returns 
and at the same time improves the soil for grain, garden vegetables, 
or fruit trees through the addition of atmospheric nitrogen and 
organic matter resulting from the decay and incorporation of its roots 
and leaves. 

The fertility of irrigated soils in most localities is maintained also 
by the sediments contributed by the river waters. These sediments 
often contain large amounts of partially decomposed animal and 
vegetable matter swept by storms into the irrigating streams from 
the surface of the range country. When incorporated with the soil 
by suitable methods of culture, they contribute materially to crop 
production. In this way the southwestern farmer’s fertilizer tax is 
paid in large part, quietly and without extra expense, by his water 
supply. 

Consequent upon arid conditions, the soils of the Southwest con¬ 
tain notable quantities of soluble or alkaline salts varying locally 
in amount and kind. The irrigated districts in Arizona being com¬ 
paratively well drained, injurious percentages of alkali salts are not 
common. These salts have accumulated, however, in certain locali¬ 
ties where irrigation has been excessive and drainage neglected, to a 
degree that depreciates seriously the productiveness of the land. 
Intelligent methods of culture and the choice of alkali-resistant crop 
plants will, to some extent, overcome or utilize alkaline accumula¬ 
tions; but good drainage, winch should be secured under any well- 
planned irrigating system, is the most satisfactory expedient for the 
purpose. 

It may be stated briefly, therefore, that the soils of this region are 
rich in certain elements of fertility; that their deficiencies in nitrogen 
and organic matter are remediable; and that the management of 
harmful accumulations of alkaline salts is facilitated by generally 
favorable drainage conditions. 

WATER RESOURCES. 

The critical factor in Arizona agriculture is not land but the water 
supply. Excellent lands are nearly everywhere in excess of the 
water available for their irrigation, and under present conditions the 
minimum flows of the interior streams are consumed comparatively 
near their sources while the lower courses are left dry except in times 
ol flood. The Colorado River, accumulating its flow from an immense 
watershed outside of the Territory, carries an amount of water 

[Bull. 235] 


S-AJV 



ft/VER 


U. S D.pt of Agt., Bui. a 35 . Office of Expt. Station.. Irric 




lagsiaff 


'Fort Mohave 


.Holbrook .. 


%cnEBM A 
AA \fr 


Jerome 


■/o~A 


Camp Verde AA 


Johns 


Parker 




"ort Apaci 


Fort MFDowel!' 




Jt(,< ,i A iEhoeniji^ 


'Globe J' 


•Clifton 


tlcaricopa 

vS.o- 


orenC' 


s oy jA 


iolomorsville 


Duncan 


Silverbell 




Willcox 


LEGEND 

Lines of equal rainfall 
^ -—^r Streams of constant flow ^ 

...-Intermittent streams 
A- Reservoirs constructed 

Reservoir sites proposed 

A << (( AL/v Underflow areas with water at less than 50 feet 

—. < it ( t 1 1 

1 4 Artesian districts 


Benson 


‘^^•Tbmbstcne^^^' 


Wdl fc »OCORSC.*K. INC. WASMt;46TON. 


Map of Arizona 













































































- 1 







n •• i - , 


e r, y r ‘ r * i* 


b "a b : * • i i o 




















29 


greatly in excess of the requirements of alluvial bottoms and irrigable 
bench lands lying along its lower courses in Arizona. This excess, 
however, will be greatly diminished when the possible demands of 
upstream districts and of the delta in Mexico and the Californias are 
satisfied. Considering the whole Territory, even after storage has 
been provided sufficient to retain the floods which now escape from 
the region so much in need of them, only a comparatively small 
acreage can be irrigated. (PI. II.) 

This deficiency in run-off, due primarily to scant rainfall, is com¬ 
pounded by thirsty soils, excessive evaporation from land and water 
surfaces, and the pervious formations common in the debris-filled 
valleys which often entirely absorb small streams. The following 
table affords an interesting comparison between the elements of gain 
and of loss in two streams of the humid region and an arid-region river: 

Comparison of rainfall , evaporation, and run-off in humid and arid regions. 


Stream. 

Date. 

Water¬ 

shed. 

Rainfall. 

Evapora¬ 

tion. 

Run-off. 

Hudson River, New York 1 . 

1888-1901 

1888- 1895 

1889- 1901 

Sq. miles 
4,500 
5,828 
12,260 

Inches. 

44.2 

39.7 

2 16.8 

Inches. 

20.9 

26.6 

3 76.1 

Inches. 
23.3 
13.1 
2.26 

Muskingum River, Ohio 1 . 

Salt River, Arizona. 

* 


1 U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply and Irrig. Paper No. 80, p. 99. 

2 Average of U. S. Weather Bureau rainfall records, including 1908, for stations at Fort Apache, Arizona 
Canal Dam, Tonto, Prescott, Jerome, and Natural Bridge. 

s Average of observations at the station farm, Phoenix, and the University at Tucson. 

The precipitation on the Salt River watershed not only is less, but 
the evaporation—possible, not actual—is vastly greater than on the 
eastern watersheds. The loss by seepage in the stream bed is prob¬ 
ably greater also. It is not surprising, therefore, that under these 
conditions the proportion of run-off to rainfall is less than from humid- 
region watersheds. Arid conditions apparently return upon them¬ 
selves, involving nature in a circle of moisture losses that requires 
the best skill of the engineer and the irrigator to break. 

Irrigating waters, as known and utilized in Arizona, may be classed 
as surface streams, ground waters, and artesian wells. 

SURFACE STREAMS. 

COLORADO RIVER. 

Nature of watershed .—The lower Colorado River is the largest 
apparent water supply available for irrigation in Arizona, but it is 
also the least utilized in proportion to its value. The area of its 
watershed, including the delta region below Yuma, is about 300,000 
square miles, lying approximately between latitudes 31° and 43^° N., 
within the boundaries of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, 
Nevada, Arizona, California, and Old Mexico. The axis of the area 

[Bull. 235J 

















30 


lies nearly north and south and its drainage passes off from the south¬ 
west corner into the Gulf of California. It rises to an elevation of 
over 14,000 feet in Colorado. 

The upper two-thirds of the watershed consists largely of plateaus 
4,000 to 8,000 feet above sea level, bounded by the high mountains 
in which rise the headwaters of tributary streams. The rain and 
snowfall in this higher portion of the drainage is equivalent to 8 to 30 
inches of water. The climate is temperate in character because of the 
altitude and latitude, and in the higher mountains there are regions 
of perpetual snow. The higher plateaus and the mountain ranges of 
the Colorado watershed are considerably forested, although in some 
sections serious inroads have been made upon the forest cover. The 
regions of middle elevation are comparatively bare and are remark¬ 
able for the great systems of deep canyons resulting from the slow 
elevation of the Rocky Mountain masses, the restricted local erosion 
due to scant rainfall, and the constant attrition along drainage lines 
of never-failing streams from the higher mountains. 

The lower third of the Colorado Valley, for the most part in Arizona 
and California, is below an altitude of about 4,000 feet. This region 
is arid or semiarid in character, the average annual rainfall ranging 
from 13 to 20 inches. By reason both of its low elevation and its 
southerly latitude its temperatures are semitropical. 

The characteristic flow of the lower river is due to the peculiarities 
of the watershed briefly described above. The winter season for the 
upper Colorado is a time of water storage due to the accumulation of 
heavy snowfall in the mountains of Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. 
At tills time the river sinks to its minimum flow, though occasionally 
augmented from the Gila at Yuma by the irregular run-off due to 
somewhat eccentric winter rains in Arizona. With the opening of 
spring the melting of the winter’s store of snow begins in the southern 
latitudes and at lower altitudes, increasing and extending until during 
May and June thousands of little streams and rivulets are converging 
from many mountain sides into the main watercourses. The Green 
River is formed in this manner from the mountain slopes of south¬ 
western Wyoming, northwestern Colorado, and the eastern half of 
Utah, while the Grand is derived from the even steeper watersheds of 
western Colorado. These two rivers unite in southeastern Utah to 
form the Colorado proper, into which flows successively the San Juan, 
the Little Colorado, and lesser tributaries, which complete the drain¬ 
age from the more elevated part of the watershed. 

The run-off of this region is comparatively uniform in time and 
quantity, giving rise to the amiual summer flood which begins about 
April 15 and continues until approximately July 15. Irregularities 
occur, due to deficient snowfall some years, to the chinooks or warm 

[Bull. 235] 


31 


winds which at times cause rapid melting, and to other climatic 
influences. In recent years also deforestation of certain areas has 
left snow surfaces more exposed. This has resulted in earlier and 
quicker melting and tended toward briefer and higher floods. 1 With 
the dwindling of the snows the upper river falls gradually to a low 
stage in September, at which it usually remains with minor fluctua¬ 
tions until the next spring. 

The upper Colorado River, with its steep gradients averaging 5.7 
feet to the mile, from the source of the Green to Grand Wash at the 
Nevada line, is an eroding stream which carries a heavy load of sedi¬ 
ment. For the last 600 miles of its course, however, from the mouth 
ol the Grand Canyon to the sea, the gradients are gentle, averaging 
but 1.7 feet to the mile, and as the current slackens the river drops 
its sediment and changes from a land destroyer to a land builder. By 
this means the alluvial ground bordering the lower courses of the 
river has been formed, and the delta extending on the west into the 
depressions of Salton and Pattie Basins is still being pushed south¬ 
ward into the Gulf of California. 

The immense quantities of silt carried in the course of a year are 
shown in the following statement of results obtained by multiplying 
the percentage of silt found in daily samples of water by the total 
flow of the river: 


Silt carried by the Colorado River annuallyd 


Year. 

Amount of silt. 

Equivalent 
area of sub¬ 
merged mud 1 
foot deep. 

Equivalent 
area of dry soil 

1 foot deep. 

1900. 

Tons. 

61,000,000 

120,961,000 

Acres. 

104,960 
181,900 

A cres. 

33,920 
58,681 

1904. 



1 Arizona Sta. Buis. 44, p. 200; 53, p. 60. 


These figures explain the rapidity with which changes in land 
surface and in sea room are occurring near the mouth of the Colorado. 
The building up of the margins of the lower river by deposited sediment 
also so elevates the stream above the adjacent country that sudden 
and sometimes disastrous changes result from the breaking of these 
high banks. Salton Sea was formed by such a break in 1905-6, and 
other changes of direction in the delta have occurred since that time. 

Under primitive conditions agricultural operations are governed by 
the annual flood which overflows the alluvial margins and delta of the 
river, and the growth of winter crops ordinarily harvested from April 
to July is prohibited. The Indians of the Colorado Valley, like the 
people of ancient Egypt, grow only such crops as can be planted in the 

i Colorado Sta. Bui. 55; U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply and Irrig. Paper No. 234, pp. 10-24; also oppo¬ 
site view in Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, Proc. Sept. 1908, pp. 924-997. 

[Bull. 235] 













32 


wet soil left by the receding waters. Quick-growing varieties of corn, 
beans, melons, squashes, and sorghum are among the principal crops 
thus grown. 

Discharge .—In the southern lower watershed the Gila River col¬ 
lects the drainage from lesser altitudes and, flowing west across south¬ 
ern Arizona, delivers its waters to the Colorado River at Yuma, about 
90 miles by channel above its mouth. The Gila is a comparatively 
small and irregular stream, due to its arid watershed and uncertain 
rainfall, although occasionally it carries enormous floods. Since the 
appropriation of its upstream waters for irrigation its lower courses 
are often dry for months in succession. 

The following table, compiled from reports of the United States 
Geological Survey and the United States Reclamation Service, gives 
the mean monthly flow and the total annual discharge of the Colorado 
and Gila Rivers at Yuma and other points for the years 1902-1909: 


Flows in thousands of acre-feet of the Colorado River at Ilardyville and Yuma , and of 

the Gila River near Yuma , 1902 - 1909 . 1 


Year and place of measurement. 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May. 

June. 

1902. 

Colorado at Yuma. 

229.2 

219.7 

301.5 

367.7 

2,211.2 

2,530.1 

Gila at Yuma. 

Colorado, net, at Yuma. 







229.2 

219.7 

301.5 

367.7 

2,211.2 

2,530.1 

1903. 

Colorado at Yuma. 

189.9 

0 

187.3 

0 

376.1 

0 

852.4 

30.2 

2,074.3 

.8 

... 

3,162.5 

0 

Gila at Yuma. 

Colorado, net, at Yuma. 

189.9 

187.3 

376.1 

822.2 

2,073.5 

3,162.5 

1904. 

Colorado at Yuma. 

223.5 

0 

218.4 

0 

367.6 

0 

479.5 

0 

1,703.0 

0 

2,607.1 
0 

Gila at Dome. 

Colorado, net, at Yuma. 

223.5 

218.4 

367.6 

479.5 

1,703.0 

2,607.1 

1905. 

Colorado at Yuma. 

499.9 

189.2 

1,561.0 

680.3 

3,108.0 

1,020.0 

2,251.0 

768.2 

2,593.0 
299.7 

4,550.0 
43.1 

Gila at Dome. 

Colorado, net, at Yuma. 

310.7 

880.7 

2,088.0 

1,482.8 

2,293.3 
1,973.0 

4,506.9 
4,508.0 

Colorado at Ilardyville. 

1906. 

Colorado at Yuma. 





422.0 

136.0 

531.0 

168.0 

1,560.0 

576.0 

1,930.0 

422.0 

3,330.0 
122.0 

5,010.0 

4.6 

Gila at Dome. 

Colorado, net, at Yuma. 

286.0 

297.0 

363.0 

327.0 

984.0 

756.0 

1,508.0 

1,880.0 

3,208.0 
3,970.0 

5,005. 4 
5,670.0 

Colorado at Ilardyville. 

1907. 

Colorado at Yuma. 

1,320.0 

502.0 

389.0 

615.7 

1,040.0 

600.0 

817.0 

772.8 

1,480.0 

1,030.0 

990.0 

975.1 

2,100.0 
1,890.0 

1,060.0 

1,805.0 

2,330.0 
2,760.0 

1,670.0 

3,324.7 

5,640.0 
5,110.0 

2,550.0 

6,240.5 

Colorado at Hardyville. 

1908. 

Colorado at Yuma. 

1909. 

Colorado at Yuma 2 . 



■ U. S. Geol. Survey, Water Supply and Irrigation Papers Nos. 85, p. 20; 100, pp. 25, 27; 133 pp. 32 206; 
134, p. 25; 175, p. 130; 177, p. 16; 211,pp. 99>, 125; 213, p. 29; 249, p. 46. 

2 United States Reclamation Service measurements. 

[Bull. 235] 

























































33 


Flows in thousands of acre-feet of the Colorado River at Hardyville and Yuma, and of 

the Gila River near Yuma, 1902-1909. 


Year and place of measurement. 

July. 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Total. 

1902. 








Colorado at Yuma. 

770.3 

257.2 

227.2 

264.3 

249.1 

332.8 

7,960.2 

Gila at Yuma. 







0) 








Colorado, net, at Yuma. 

770.3 

257.2 

227.2 

264.3 

249.1 

332.8 

7,960.2 

1903. 








Colorado at Yuma. 

2,304.5 

668.3 

403.8 

521.5 

321.3 

267.0 

11,329.0 

Gila at Yuma. 

0 

9.2 

7.3 

13.6 

0 

0 

61.2 

Colorado, net, at Yuma. 

2,304.5 

659.1 

396.5 

507.9 

321.3 

267.0 

11,267.8 

1904. 








Colorado at Yuma. 

1,417.1 

1,054.1 

691.5 

715.8 

366.0 

275.3 

10,119.0 

Gila at Dome. 

5.8 

139.6 

41.7 

32.8 

6.5 

0 

226.4 

Colorado, net, at Yuma. 

1,411.3 

914.5 

649.8 

683.0 

359.5 

275.3 

9,892.6 

1905. 








Colorado at Yuma. 

1,864.0 

744.0 

386.5 

494.2 

714.0 

946.9 

19,712.5 

Gila at Dome. 

4.3 

0 

3.0 

11.0 

271.2 

375.1 

3,665.1 

Colorado, net, at Yuma. 

1,859.7 

744.0 

383.5 

483.2 

442.8 

571.8 

16,047.4 

Colorado at Hardyville. 

1,556.0 

726.2 

414.9 

527.0 

452.6 

559.4 

( 2 ) 

1906. 







• 

Colorado at Yuma. 

2,400.0 

1,180.0 

696.0 

719.0 

578.0 

1,130.0 

19,490.0 

Gila at Dome. 

0 

25.1 

4.3 

0 

0 

332.0 

1,790.0 

Colorado, net, at Yuma. 

2, 400.0 

1,154.9 

691.7 

719.0 

578.0 

798.0 

17,700.0 

Colorado at Hardyville. 

2,460.0 

1,130.0 

797.0 

719.0 

587.0 

569.0 

19,162.0 

1907. 

* 







Colorado at Yuma. 

5,930.0 

2,310.0 

1,380.0 

836.0 

643.0 

458.0 

25,500.0 

Pnlnrarln at. TTArHwillA 

4,630.0 

2,000.0 

1,090.0 





1908. 





Colorado at Yuma. 

2,000.0 

1,490.0 

678.0 

585.0 

481.0 

978.0 

13,700.0 

1909. 








Colorado at Yuma 3 . 

4,896.9 

2,508.5 

2,888.6 

860.8 

561.9 

517.1 

25,967.6 


i Very small. 2 Incomplete. 3 United States Reclamation Service measurements. 


The Colorado proper at Yuma, after deducting the Gila, is shown 
to deliver from about 8,000,000 to over 25,000,000 acre-feet of water 
annually; and the Gila from a few thousand to 3,665,000 acre-feet. 
The flow of the Colorado, excluding the Gila, for the years 1902 to 
1909, inclusive, during which regular measurements have been taken 
at Yuma, has averaged about 16,000,000 acre-feet annually. Allow¬ 
ing for the years of exceptionally high water included above, it 
is estimated that the Colorado alone at Yuma carries a safe average 
of 12,000,000 acre-feet of water a year with an eccentric and very 
variable run-off from the Gila in addition. It is of interest to note 
that during 1906, 1,500,000 acre-feet less water was carried by the 
Colorado at Yuma than at Hardyville, 270 miles above. This loss, 
occurring mainly during the flood season, apparently is due to the 
72293°— Bull. 235—11-3 






























































34 


absorption of overflow waters by the dried-out lowlands and by 
evaporation, similar to that of the Nile below the Atbara, its last 
important tributary. 1 What portion of the total flow of the Colorado 
River, as measured at Yuma, will be available for irrigation in Ari¬ 
zona, is a matter which can only be approximated at this time. 

Storage 'possibilities .—The Gila floods will be stored in large part 
in the reservoirs projected on the Salt, Verde, and Gila Rivers. 
Surveys for reservoirs having an aggregate capacity of about 
3,000,000 acre-feet, including the Roosevelt Reservoir of 1,284,000 
acre-feet, have been made on the principal sites. The greater part 
of the run-off of the Little Colorado River and its tributaries in 
northern Arizona likewise can be utilized and stored. 

After deducting these tributaries, the main dependable supply for 
irrigation in western Arizona, southern California, and the Mexican 
delta must come from the upper branches of the Colorado in Wyo¬ 
ming, Colorado, and Utah, and the disposition of these upper streams 
is consequently of vital interest to prospective downstream irrigators. 
Probable developments can be surmised only in a very general way 
at this time. According to the best information available, there are 
now approximately 420,000 acres irrigated above the Grand Canyon 
of northern Arizona, with additional areas to the extent of a pos¬ 
sible 750,000 acres, to which water may be applied ultimately. A 
rough outline of the probable effect of these extended operations 
upon the Colorado is supplied by the following table, which is offered 
as an approximation based upon estimates of agricultural areas 
derived from irrigation engineers resident in Wyoming, Utah, and 
Colorado, and of run-off and duty of water from United States 
Reclamation Service records: 


Estimates of upstream water surplus of Colorado River. 


Supply streams and places of 
measurement. 

Area irri¬ 
gated in 
watershed 
in 1908. 

Estimated 

additional 

irrigable 

area. 

Duty of 
water. 

Water re¬ 
quired to 
irrigate 
additional 
area. 

Average 

run-oil' 

available. 

Surplus. 

Wyoming: 

Green River at Browns 

Acres. 

Acres. 

Acre-feet 
per acre. 

Acre-feet. 

Acre-feet. 

A cr e-feet. 

Park, Colo. 

100,000 

000,000 

2 

1,200,000 

2,500,000 

1,300,000 

Colorado: 

Yam pa River at Maybell, 
Colo. 

42,080 

95,000 

2.5 

237,500 

1,000,000 

762,500 

White River at Rangely, 
Colo.. 

3,853 

50,000 

2.5 

125,000 

400,000 

275,000 

Grand River at Palisades, 
Colo. 

84,900 

232,000 

2.5 

580,000 

3,000,000 

2,420,000 

Gunnison River at White- 
water, Colo. 

131,800 

190,000 

2.5 

475,000 

2,000,000 

1,525,000 

Dolores River at Dolores, 
Colo. 

9,445 

00,000 

2.5 

150,000 

300,000 

150,000 

San Juan River at Farm¬ 
ington, N. Mex. 

48,918 

123,000 

3 

369,000 

800,000 

431,000 


1 Ann. Rpt. Smithsonian Inst., 1908, p. 485, Some Geographical Aspects of the Nile. 
[Bull. 235] 

























35 


Estimates of upstream water surplus of Colorado River— Continued. 


Supply streams and places of 
measurement. 

Area irri¬ 
gated in 
watershed 
in 1908. 

Estimated 

additional 

irrigable 

area. 

Duty of 
water. 

Water re¬ 
quired to 
irrigate 
additional 
area. 

Average 

run-off 

available. 

Surplus. 

Utah: 

Duchesne and Uinta Riv¬ 
ers at My ton and Fort 
Duchesne, Utah. 

Acres. 

Acres. 
i 180,000 

Acre-feet 
per acre. 

2 

Acre-feet. 
360,000 

Acre-feet. 

660,000 

Acre-feet. 
300,000 

1,500,000 

Additional run-off below 
gaging stations, e s t i - 
mated. 


Total. 






321,596 

1,530,000 


3,496,500 

10,660,000 

8,663,500 




1 Indian reserve. 


It is believed that in this table the estimates of additional areas 
to be irrigated and the allowance of water therefor are liberal, and 
those of run-off reasonably accurate. It appears, therefore, from 
these figures that after allowing for prospective upstream develop¬ 
ments there remains a vast excess of water, especially in the rivers 
of western Colorado—an excess which may be stated in round num¬ 
bers at 9,000,000 acre-feet. This supply, once delivered to the deep 
canyons which begin in eastern Utah, can not be drawn from again 
until it emerges upon the alluvial levels of the lower Colorado in 
western Arizona. 

Most of the run-off, however, occurs in May and June; and its 
complete utilization by downstream districts will require storage to 
retain this flood and equalize the flow of the river throughout the 
downstream irrigating season. Fortunately there are many reser¬ 
voir sites on the upper watershed of the Colorado, some of them very 
extensive. A few of the largest are named below, there being many 
smaller sites: 

Proposed upstream reservoir sites on the Colorado River and tributaries. 


Reservoir sites. 

Height 
of dam 
required. 

Storage ca¬ 
pacity. 

Authority. 

Flaming Gorge, on Green River in north- 

Feet. 

100 

Acre-feet. 
350,000 

United States Reclamation Service. 

eastern Utah. 

Browns Park, on Green River in north- 

200 

2,520,000 

Do. 

western Colorado. 

Island Park, on Green River in northeast- 

100 

150,000 

Do. 

ern Utah. 

Mouth of Minnie Maud Creek, on Green 

120 

1,200,000 

Records of office of State engineer, Salt 

River in eastern Utah. 

Green River, 27 miles north of Green River, 

155 

800,000 

Lake City, Utah. 

Do. 

Utah. 

Kremmling, on Grand River in northern 

230 

2,200,000 

United States Reclamation Service. 

Colorado. 

Junction of Green and Grand Rivers in 

160 

2,500,000 

Records of office of State engineer, Salt 

southeastern Utah. 

Total. 


9,720,000 

Lake City, Utah. 


In general there appears to be abundant storage room for the 
surplus waters shown in the table on page 34, should the sites prove 














































36 


feasible and the expense of construction be warranted by the agri¬ 
cultural values in Arizona, California, and Mexico. The rocky can¬ 
yons of the Colorado for the 700 miles between the mouth of Grand 
River and the upper irrigable areas in Arizona should convey the 
equalized stream with minimum loss to those lower districts whose 
unusual productiveness may at some future time warrant upstream 
reservoirs. 

As to the maximum probable areas and water requirements of 
the lower districts, allowing 5.5 acre-feet per acre, we have a fair 
approximate knowledge, as shown in the following table, derived 
chiefly from United States Reclamation Service data: 


Irrigable areas and water requirements in southern Arizona, California, and Mexico. 


District. 

Irrigable 

areas. 

Irrigation 

require¬ 

ments. 

Arizona: 

Mohave Valley. 

Acres. 

47,171 
133,536 
90,913 
40,000 
40,000 

Acre-feet. 

Colorado Valley. 


Yuma Valley. 

■ 1,933,910 

Mesa lands at Parker (by pumping—estimated). 

Yuma (irrigable by pumping).".. 




Total. 

351,620 




California: 

Mohave Valley. 

17,395 

80,588 


Colorado Valley. 

• 2,874,207 

Yuma Valley. 

24,600 

400,000 

Imperial Valley. 




Total. 

522,583 




Mexico: 

Colorado delta and Pattie basin lands. 

500,000 

2,750,000 


Grand total. .. 

1,374,203 

7,558,117 


It appears, therefore, estimating acreages liberally and assuming. 
high water duties, that the equalized surplus of 9,000,000 acre-feet, 
roughly calculated to be available from the upper Colorado, will 
be adequate for the reclamation of all irrigable downstream areas. 
The details of the estimates presented above may be considerably 
modified with increased knowledge of the vast region involved, but 
in a general way it may be stated with considerable confidence that 
the water supply of the Colorado, with storage, is sufficient for the 
whole of its dependent irrigable lands. This is a most fortunate 
fact in view of the interstate and international character of this 
stream, looking toward a harmonious and confident development of 
all portions of the Colorado watershed, including those areas in 
Arizona with which this publication is chiefly concerned, and for 
which an ultimate water requirement from the Colorado of approxi¬ 
mately 2,000,000 acre-feet, annually, should be anticipated. 

In addition to its agricultural value, the Colorado has immense 
power possibilities, especially along the canyons of the upper river 
[Bull. 235] 
































37 


and its tributaries, with their steep gradients and numerous dam 
sites. By reason of gentler gradients, power development along the 
lower Colorado will be small in proportion to the size of the stream, 
but valuable by reason of the contiguous agricultural and industrial 
population which will occupy this region ultimately. 

LITTLE COLORADO RIVER. 

The watershed of the Little Colorado, situated almost entirely in 
northeastern Arizona, is a plateau region, lying for the most part 
between 5,000 and 7,000 feet altitude. This plateau is diversified 
with square-topped hills or buttes and intersected by watercourses 
which deepen into precipitous canyons as they approach the Colo¬ 
rado. The rainfall averages about 10 inches, this small precipita¬ 
tion being due to the loss of moisture from north-bound winds on the 
southern slopes of the Mogollon rim, which divides the plateau from 
the lower and warmer part of the Territory. The run-off is small, 
and, because of the porous character of stream beds, hard to estimate 
satisfactorily. Measurements at various points by the United States 
Reclamation Service are as follows: 


Stream measurements on Little Colorado River. 


Place of measurement. 

1905 

1906 

1907 

1908 

Little Colorado at St. Johns. 

Acre-feet. 

Acre-feet. 
i 24,400 
85,200 
117,000 
1,440 
80,300 

5 22,300 

Acre-feet. 

50,973 

72,543 

4 78,498 

Acre-feet. 

2 17,649 

Little Colorado at Woodruff. 

3 114,400 

3 213,700 

Little Colorado at Holbrook. 


Silver Creek excess at Snowflake. 


Chevelon Fork near W inslow. 


176,179 

1,047,555 

282,336 

Clear Creek near W inslow. 


Total. 



328,100 

330,640 

378,193 

1,347,540 



1 April to December, inclusive. 4 January to April, inclusive. 

2 January to August, inclusive. 3 June to December, inclusive. 

3 March to December, inclusive. 


Deducting flood waters at St. Johns and Woodruff, the measure¬ 
ment of which is repeated in large part at Holbrook, the net run-off 
thus far measured has been about 250,000 to 1,300,000 acre-feet 
from the watershed of approximately 15,000 square miles above 
Winslow. Storage is possible for this run-off as follows: 


Storage 'possibilities on the Little Colorado River. 


Place of storage. 

Contour. 

Capacity. 

Little Colorado from Woodruff to St. Johns: 

Woodruff reservoir. 

Feet. 

100 

Acre-feet. 

108,000 

148,000 

13,000 

20,000 

'3,900 

54,000 

117,000 

Forks reservoir above Woodruff. 

85 

Udall reservoir at Hunt. 

Lyman reservoir above St. Johns. 


On Silver Creek: 

Snowflake and Taylor reservoirs (large additional storage possible in this 
vicinity). 


Below Holbrook: 

Le Roux reservoir . 

35 

Tucker Flat reservoir near Winslow. 

50 


Total . 


463,900 




[Bull. 235] 


















































38 


So far as these fragmentary data show, ample storage is possible for 
the entire run-off of the Little Colorado above Woodruff and for a 
portion of the flood waters of Chevelon and Clear Creeks. With 
storage, probably 300,000 acre-feet annually of the run-off of north¬ 
eastern Arizona can be utilized for irrigation, which, assuming a duty 
of 3 acre-feet annually as necessary for a region of high elevation and 
relatively short growing season, should irrigate about 100,000 acres. 

SALT RIVER. 

Nature of watershed .—The watershed of Salt River, including that 
of its nearly equally large tributary, the Verde River, has an area of 
12,240 square miles lying in central and east-central Arizona. Nearly 
the whole of this watershed is mountainous, ranging from an alti¬ 
tude of 1,310 feet at the Granite Reef diversion dam, 27 miles above 
Phoenix, to upward of 10,000 feet in the White Mountains, near the 
New Mexico boundary. The main tributaries of upper Salt River— 
Bonita, White Mountain, Carrizo, Cibicu, Canyon, Cherry, and Tonto 
Creeks—all come from the north and drain the southern escarpment 
of the northern plateau country. The Verde River, with its own 
system of tributaries, also flows from the north into the Salt River 
at the head of Salt River Valley. 

The region of highest rainfall in Arizona is due to the high south 
slopes of the Salt and Verde River watersheds which precipitate the 
moisture of the winds from southerly directions. This rainfall 
occurs in two not very sharply defined seasons, summer and winter. 
The summer rainfall, for the most part in July and August, is largely 
torrential in character, resulting in sudden floods which are largely 
lost downstream, and in intervening seasons of low flow. The win¬ 
ter rains are usually gradual in character and generate a more uni¬ 
form stream flow. The winter precipitation on higher ranges also 
is largely in the form of snow, the melting of which in the spring 
equalizes and prolongs the irrigating supply. 

The watershed of the upper Salt River is largely forested. Fortu¬ 
nately it is also occupied largely by the Fort Apache Indian Reserva¬ 
tion. This has resulted in restricted use of the region for grazing 
purposes, and in the conservation of original conditions of run-off 
in this important district. The Verde River country,, however, 
which resembles that of the Salt, has remained unreserved until 
recently and has been overgrazed for many years. Floods here con¬ 
sequently are more sudden and wasteful of water, the minimum flow 
is less and more prolonged, and greater amounts of sediment are car¬ 
ried by the aggregate run-off from comparatively bare land surfaces. 
These two streams afford an excellent illustration of the benefits 
arising to irrigation interests from administrative control of 
watersheds. 

[Bull. 235] 


39 


Discharge and storage 'possibilities. —The flow of the Salt and Verde 
Rivers has been measured longest and most accurately of the irri¬ 
gating streams of the Territory. The following table, constructed 
from data afforded by the Salt River Valley water companies, the 
water commissioner, the United States Reclamation Service, and the 
United States Geological Survey, affords an excellent idea of the 
united flow of the Salt and Verde Rivers just below their junction: 


Monthly flow oj Salt River below junction with Verde River, in thousands of acre-feet. 1 


Year. 

January. 

February. 

March. 

April. 

May. 

June. 

July. 

August. 

September. 

October. 

November. 

December. 

Total for 

year. 

Monthly av¬ 

erage. 

1888.. 








21.5 

20.8 

20.3 

50.1 

411.9 



1889.. 

305.7 

144.6 

537.8 

230.5 

63.9 

28.0 

30.5 

25.6 

31.0 

27.1 

34.3 

349.7 

1,874.7 

156.2 

1890.. 

300.4 

500.4 

394.9 

109. 4 

50.2 

30.4 

32.2 

238.9 

139.2 

100.2 

280.7 

384.9 

2,693. 9 

224.5 

1891.. 

210.1 

2,175.7 

303.9 

158.9 

148. 3 

79.5 

45.9 

34.9 

48.9 

31.7 

30.5 

35.9 

3,304. 1 

275.3 

1892.. 

41.6 

24.5 

25.2 

26. 1 

29.5 

10.4 

22.3 

24.8 

20.3 

27.4 

30.5 

33.5 

316.1 

26.3 

1893.. 

33.8 

82.9 

849.0 

80.2 

48.7 

13.5 

33.0 

100.7 

65.7 

40.2 

35.2 

38.7 

1, 433. 6 

119.5 

1894.. 

35.8 

31.9 

83.5 

50.9 

31.9 

15.7 

17.5 

55.0 

30. 2 

29.7 

27.3 

54.3 

409.7 

39.2 

1895.. 

617.7 

177.6 

345.1 

161.5 

59.9 

29.5 

19.9 

52.2 

20.8 

89.1 

78.1 

65.3 

1,722.7 

143.5 

18%.. 

50.6 

33.7 

73.5 

75.3 

42. 4 

20.6 

106.6 

106. 6 

69.0 

55.7 

58.0 

43.3 

735.9 

61.3 

1897.. 

313.0 

107.7 

237. 1 

353.8 

89.5 

32.6 

19.3 

54.9 

104. 3 

57.4 

33.0 

34.9 

1,438. 1 

119.9 

1898.. 

38.8 

63.3 

85.3 

69.0 

40.6 

24.0 

47.8 

50.8 

42.9 

21.2 

25.0 

39. 1 

547.8 

45.6 

1899.. 

45.9 

42.7 

48. 1 

47.7 

29.5 

22.5 

52.9 

72. 4 

41.1 

51.4 

20.6 

26.7 

507.5 

42.3 

1900.. 

27.7 

24.5 

25.2 

26. 1 

29.5 

10.3 

7.6 

18.9 

15.0 

22.5 

51.2 

27.5 

280.0 

23.8 

1901.. 

52.7 

250.7 

150.3 

80. 4 

56.8 

25.4 

36.7 

74.6 

25.8 

18.8 

20.4 

29. 4 

828.0 

68.9 

1902.. 

24.6 

24.8 

27.3 

23.9 

22.3 

14.0 

10.6 

61.9 

134.0 

18.0 

24.9 

57.2 

443.5 

36.9 

1903.. 

26'-9 

37.0 

53.8 

62.6 

26.7 

23.7 

22.9 

42.7 

49.1 

33.8 

24.0 

26. 1 

429.3 

35.8 

1904.. 

26.0 

22.8 

21.4 

14.9 

14.9 

7.5 

70.5 

204.2 

59.2 

28.1 

23.0 

26.6 

519.1 

43.3 

1905.. 

225.6 

992.9 

l, 442. 5 

1,126. 2 

374. 2 

108.9 

50.0 

71.2 

101.2 

00.8 

790. 5 

179.7 

5,529. 7 

400. 8 

1900.. 

151.9 

164.9 

829.0 

364.3 

110. 2 

47.3 

45.6 

100. 8 

35.2 

29.7 

41.0 

458.0 

2,383.9 

198.7 

1907.. 

381.8 

323. 4 

517.9 

197.9 

09. 8 

45.6 

39.2 

95.4 

94.2 

110.4 

80.5 

56. 0 

2,012. 1 

107.7 

1908.. 

44. 1 

342.2 

325.5 

117.5 

80.1 

35 8 

79.3 

188.8 

89.5 

40.3 

39.1 

428.2 

1,810.4 

151.4 

1909.. 

178.7 

283.3 

314. 1 

300.7 

50. 7 

49.0 


















Av. 

152.4 

281.5 

318.6 

176. 0 

70.8 

32.1 

39.5 

80.8 

59.5 

40.7 

86.5 

133.9 

1,464.6 

122.4 


1 From estimates contained in Water Supply and Irrigation Papers Nos. 2, 73, and 83; also measure¬ 
ments in Water Supply and Irrigation Papers 85, 100, 133, 175, and 211. 

The fluctuations each year, the differences between years, and the 
average flows for months and years are shown for 21 years. Reckon¬ 
ing on an irrigable area of 275,000 acres in Salt River Valley, the 
amount of water delivered each year is sufficient to cover this area 
to a depth of 1 to 20 feet; that is, there is one-fourth to five times 
enough water for general agricultural operations. This condition of 
fluctuation from month to month and from year to year indicates the 
necessity for water storage in order to equalize the water supply and, 
especially, to make available the occasional floods which have hereto¬ 
fore escaped in large part to the ocean. Storage capacity exists as 
follows: 

Storage capacity on Salt and Verde Rivers. 


Reservoir. 

River. 

Height 
of dam. 

Capacity. 

T?nn<;pvplt . 

Salt. 

Feet. 

284 

210 

150 

Acre-feet. 
1,284, (KM) 
280,000 
205,000 

MpDowpII . 

Verde. 

TTnr<?pshoe . 

.do. 




[Bull. 235] 


























































40 


The problem of the irrigating efficiency of the Salt and Verde 
Rivers with the help of feasible storage sites is of such unusual interest 
as to warrant especial attention. The accompanying sketch is nec¬ 
essary to an understanding of the elements of that problem (fig. 4). 
The Salt and Verde Rivers, which unite to afford the Salt River Valley 
supply, join just above Granite Reef, at which point the irrigating 
stream is diverted to the valley. Of these two rivers, the Salt is the 
larger, separate measurements being available since January, 1903, 
as shown in the following table: 

Monthly flow oj the Salt and Verde Rivers at McDowell , near Lehi, Ariz., in thousands oj 

acre-feet . 1 


River. 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 

Apr. 

May. 

June. 

July. 

1903: 








Salt. 

11.6 

16.9 

21.5 

2 40.0 

2 18.0 

15.6 

8.7 

Verde. 

15.3 

20.1 

32.2 

22.6 

8.7 

8.1 

14.3 

1904: 








Salt. 

11.4 

9.8 

10.1 

7.9 

7.2 

3.8 

25.7 

Verde. 

14.6 

13.0 

11.3 

7.1 

7.7 

3.7 

44.8 

1905: 








Salt. 

138.3 

564.8 

902.6 

815.2 

323.0 

92.1 

34.9 

Verde. 

87.3 

428.1 

539.9 

311.0 

51.2 

16.8 

15.1 

1906: 








Salt. 

102.0 

98.3 

493.0 

303.0 

101.0 

38.4 

31.2 

Verde. 

49.9 

66.6 

336.0 

61.3 

15.2 

8.9 

14.4 

1907: 








Salt. 

232.0 

178.0 

285.0 

148.0 

54.3 

33.9 

25.9 

Verde. 

149.0 

146.0 

232.0 

49.9 

15.4 

12.4 

13.3 

1908: 








Salt. 

25.3 

229.0 

240.0 

99.4 

58.8 

27.1 

50.8 

Verde. 

18.8 

113.0 

86.1 

17.9 

27.2 

8.7 

28.5 

1909: 3 








Salt. 

64.5 

202.8 

188.3 

232.0 

38. 4 

40.9 


Verde. 

114.2 

80.5 

125.9 

74.7 

12.4 

8.1 





River. 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Total. 

Salt. 

Verde. 

1903: 








Salt. 

22.4 

18.6 

14.2 

11. 7 

12 1 

211.0 


Verde. 

20.2 

30.5 

19.6 

12.3 

14.0 

217.9 

1904: 





Salt. 

104.3 

30.5 

16.5 

10.5 

11 8 

249.4 


Verde. 

99.9 

28.7 

11. 6 

12.5 

14.8 

269.7 

1905: 





Salt. 

36.3 

55.3 

27.3 

592.3 

125 9 

3,708.1 


Verde. 

34.9 

45.9 

33.5 

204.2 

53.8 

1 ft 99 n 

1906: 






Salt. 

55.1 

22.6 

18.6 

22. 4 

296 0 

1,580.0 


Verde. 

45.7 

12.6 

11.1 

18.6 

162.0 

802.3 

1907: 





Salt. 

68.9 

70.2 

72.6 

58.3 

34 1 

1 260 0 


Verde. 

26.4 

24.0 

37.8 

22.3 

19.9 


748.0 

1908: 








Salt. 

135.0 

68. 4 

24.0 

22 3 

236 0 

1,220.0 


Verde. 

54.1 

21.2 

16.3 

16.7 

192! 0 

600.0 







1 U. S. Geol. Survey, Water Supply and Irrigation Papers Nos. 100, pp. 36, 41; 133, pp. 221 227- 175 
p. 181; 211, pp. 137, 139; 249, pp. 190, 191, 195. ’ ’ * 

2 Measurements for only part of month. Monthly flow is estimated from rainfall. 

3 U. S. Reclamation records. 


For the period of measurement it appears that the Salt carried about 
65 per cent of the united flow, and the Verde about 35 per cent. The 
elements of the physical situation involved are, therefore— 

[Bull. 235] 












































































41 


(1) Salt River carries 65 per cent of the total supply under the 
following conditions: (a) About 10 per cent of its watershed lies 
below Roosevelt reservoir and the run-off of this area can not be 
regulated; (b) the power canal, skirting the south side of Roosevelt 
reservoir, has a capacity of 250 cubic feet per second, or 15,000 
acre-feet a month, which, theoretically, can not be stored and must 
be taken as it comes at Granite Reef; (c) Roosevelt reservoir, with 
a capacity of 1,284,000 acre-feet, is available for the storage of the 
waters of Salt River less the two above subtractions, which leaves 
approximately 70 per cent of the average whole flow; ( d ) the evapo- 



4 

ration from the water surface in the reservoir, estimated at 66 inches, 
less 13 inches rainfall, leaves a net loss of 53 inches in depth each 
year. This would amount to a loss by evaporation of about 70,000 
acre-feet a year, when the reservoir is full; (e) the power to be gen¬ 
erated by the reservoir supply at times when that supply is being 
drawn upon can be used to pump supplementary ground waters for 
irrigation in Salt River Valley, and thus conserve the storage room 
of the reservoir and lengthen its period of duty during times of pro¬ 
longed drought; and (/) power installations for pumping and indus¬ 
trial purposes derive their motive power from the power canal at 
Roosevelt Dam and at other feasible sites on Salt River and dependent 

canals. 

[Bull. 235] 










42 



[Bull. 235] 


(2) The Verde River car¬ 
ries 35 per cent of the total 
water supply, with the fol¬ 
lowing possibilities: {a) The 
McDowell storage reservoir, 
with 280,000 acre-feet ca¬ 
pacity, lying at the mouth 
of the river and intercepting 
all of the Verde flood waters; 
(b) Horseshoe reservoir, with 
205,000 acre-feet capacity, 
3 a short distance above, in- 
2 tercepting nearly all of the 
8 Verde flood waters; (c) net 
| evaporation, subtracting 
Jj rainfall, may be approxi- 
s mated at 53 inches for these 
§ reservoirs also; (d) there are 
> canal and reservoir power 
5 possibilities, as at Roosevelt. 
m Irrigable area in valley .—- 
2 It is necessary in arriving 
jj at the possible future water 
=j supply of Salt River Valley 
| to estimate the maximum 

a continuous flow which these 
<0 

I, two rivers, each with its 
•S own storage, coordinately 
•9 administered, may be made 
| to deliver. The following 
a graph (fig. 5) represents the 
5 efficiency of the two rivers 
« under two sets of conditions: 
S (1) With a monthly delivery 
of 60,000 acre-feet, using, 
first, the unregulated flow 
of a portion of Salt River 
and all of the Verde, and, 
second, supplementing this 
with stored water from 
Roosevelt reservoir, the total 
storage capacity being 
1,284,000 acre-feet; and (2) 
with a monthly delivery of 
70,000 acre-feet, using full 



























































































43 


storage on both the Salt and the Verde, total storage capacity 
being 1,769,000 acre-feet. 

In both cases the estimates expressed in the graph take into con¬ 
sideration (1) the unstored 10 per cent of Salt River plus the Roose¬ 
velt power canal supply, (2) the Verde, with or without storage, as 
the case may be, and (3) the Roosevelt reservoir supply corrected 
for evaporation and rainfall. The Verde reservoirs, when used, are 
also corrected for evaporation. The figure for evaporation used is 66 
inches less 13 inches of rainfall, leaving 53 inches of net loss, divided 
between months of the year as follows : x January, 0.2 inch; February, 
1.2 inches; March, 2.7 inches; April, 5.2 inches; May, 7.9 inches; 
June, 9.3 inches; July, 10.1 inches; August, 4.7 inches; September, 
5.9 inches; October, 4.3 inches; November, 0.9 inch; and December, 
0.6 inch. 

The power which can be derived from the reservoir water at the 
three sites, and which could be used to raise an auxiliary pumped 
supply, does not enter into the estimates, which relate to surface 
waters only; neither is a possible small reduction of reservoir capacity, 
due to filling in of sediments, allowed for. 2 

The tables on which the graph (p. 42) is based, showing the theo¬ 
retical behavior of the water supply for the last 21 years—August, 
1888, to June, 1909—under the two conditions of storage and output 
considered, are too voluminous to print, but may be summarized as 
follows: 

(1) With a monthly delivery of 60,000 acre-feet, using 1,284,000 
acre-feet of storage at Roosevelt only, to supplement the unregu¬ 
lated fraction of the Salt and the whole unregulated Verde: 


Water supply of Salt River, 1888 to 1909. 
[Total flow, 31,079,000 acre-feet.] 



Acre-feet. 

Per cent 
of total 
flow. 

Flood waste.-.-. 

14,375,000 

14,528,000 

1,083,000 

1,246,000 

46.2 

Regulated stream flow delivered to Salt River Valley. 

46. 7 

Evaporation.... . 

3. 4 

In storage at end of period. 

4 



Total . 

31,232,000 

3 100. 3 


• 

Periods of shortage: 

April to August, 1902 , 5 months . 


Per cent of 
full sup¬ 
ply. 

49 

73 

November, 1902, to March, 1903, 5 months. 


May 1903, to June, 1904, 14 months. 


43 

December, 1904, 1 month. 


71 


* 


1 This evaporation was observed at the station farm near Phoenix during the dry season of 1901-2. The 
rainfall is averaged between McDowell and Tonto for a period of years. 

2 Arizona Sta. Bui. 44, pp. 157-159. 

a Three-tenths of 1 per cent error, due to approximations employed. 

[Bull. 235] 






















44 


(2) With a monthly delivery of 70,000 acre-feet, using 485,000 
acre-feet of storage at McDowell and Horseshoe reservoirs on the 
Verde and 1,284,000 acre-feet of storage at Roosevelt on the Salt: 

Water supply of Salt River, 1888 to 1909. 


[Total flow, 31,079,000 acre-feet.] 



Acre-feet. 

Per cent 
of total 
flow. 

Flood waste . . 

11,773,000 

16,130,000 

1,129,000 

1,676,000 

37.7 

51.9 

4.7 

5.4 

Rpgnlatpd stroam flow dolivp.rp.d to Sa.lt River Valley..*. 

Evaporation . 

In storage at end of period. 

Total . . 

30,708,000 

i 99.7 

Periods of shortage: 

October, 1900, to January, 1901, 4 months. 


Per cent of 
full sup¬ 
ply. 

55 

42 

45 

84 

December, 1901, to August, 1902, 9 months. 


November, 1902, to June, 1904, 20 months. 


December, 1904, 1 montli. 





1 Three-tenths of 1 per ce*t error, due to approximations employed. 


In the first case, with only the Roosevelt reservoir and a monthly 
suppty of 60,000 acre-feet used, four periods of shortage occur, three 
of which could have been easily tided over with the help of pumped 
water. The fourth period of 14 months, occurring at the end of a 
series of dry years, would probably have proved manageable also in 
the same manner, as a succession of power sites on the Salt River and 
dependent canals, taking the whole future into consideration, will 
place great power resources at disposal, even at times of low stream 
flow. 

In the second case, with all three reservoirs and a monthly supply 
of 70,000 acre-feet used, four periods of shortage occur, two of which 
are unimportant. A third, of nine months’ duration would probably 
have proven manageable by means of pumped water. The fourth 
shortage, of 20 months’ duration, with less than a half supply of irri¬ 
gating water available, would probably represent an extreme condi¬ 
tion, occurring, so far as present records show, but once in 21 years. 
Probably such an exigency can be risked for the sake of a larger 
utilization of Salt River, especially as the water will be less wastefully 
applied eventually, requirements will tend to grow less, and methods 
of apportionment in times of extreme need will probably be devised. 

It may be reasonably assumed, therefore, that with a total storage 
at the Roosevelt, McDowell, and Horseshoe reservoirs of 1,769,000 
acre-feet the Salt and Verde Rivers may, except on rare occasions, 
be relied upon to deliver about 70,000 acre-feet of river water each 
month to the irrigated valley below. This amounts to 840,000 acre- 
feet annually, which, assuming a requirement under improved con- 

[Bull. 235] 






















45 


ditions of 4 feet deep of irrigating water a year, is sufficient for 
210,000 acres. This does not include the pumped water supply, which 
is to be considered independently of the gravity water supply dis¬ 
cussed above. 

Power and pumping .—It is estimated by the United States Recla¬ 
mation Service that about 26,000 horsepower will be developed 
at the Roosevelt Dam, at several sites along Salt River between 
Roosevelt and Granite Reef, and in the canals of the Salt River Valley. 
The respective amounts of horsepower contemplated are: Roosevelt 
power canal, 4,400; reservoir power, 3,000; three sites on Salt River 
between Roosevelt and Granite Reef, 10,500; four sites in Salt River 
Valley canals, 8,000; total, 25,900. 

This is much in excess of the amount of power necessary to lift the 
estimated underground water supply within the limits of the project, 
leaving a valuable surplus which may be sold for industrial purposes 
in the valley and in neighboring mining towns. The amount of pumped 
water now contemplated will be about 200,000 acre-feet annually, 
an amount sufficient to irrigate 50,000 acres. This pumped supply, 
moreover, may be economized or supplemented from time to time by 
a judicious use of occasional flood waters, just as on the other hand 
lowering reservoir waters may be supplemented by pumped supplies. 
Estimating liberally that 6,000 horsepower will care for pumping 
operations contemplated within the district, a residue of approxi¬ 
mately 20,000 horsepower remains, which, in operation, it is believed 
will have a market value of not less than $1,000,000 annually. Salt 
River, therefore, as it will be developed ultimately is to be considered 
not only an irrigating stream of great value, but, in a region of limited 
fuel supply, an immensely important source of power also. 

GILA RIVER. 

Watershed and run-off .—The Gila River, rising in southwestern New 
Mexico, pursues a general westerly course across southern Arizona, 
joining the Colorado about 90 miles above the mouth of the latter. 
That portion of the watershed of the Gila lying west of its confluence 
with Salt River is of little or no value for irrigation on account of its 
very arid character. The water-productive territory east of Florence, 
Ariz., has an area of nearly 18,000 square miles. This region is for 
the most part of low elevation, and is forested only on the upper slopes 
of the mountains and in the bottoms of the valleys, where mesquite 
thrives. The extensive plains at higher elevations are grass or browse 
covered in season, while those in the western more arid districts are 
usually barren. The Gila watershed has been occupied by cattle for 
the last 40 years, and at times has been overstocked and overgrazed. 
This has resulted in destruction of the grass cover, in permitting rapid 
run-off from the bared surfaces, and in consequent erosion along lines 
[Bull. 235] 


46 


of water flow, so that fully 500 miles of the valley bottoms are now 
gullied and the hydrographic conditions greatly changed. In striking 
contrast to the Salt River, the Gila is an example of a stream whose 
watershed has suffered irreparable damage to the land surface in 
years past from a total lack of administrative care. 

The run-off of the Gila is difficult to estimate, differing in this respect 
from the Salt and Colorado Rivers, which, confined in rocky beds in 
their upper courses, can be quite definitely and completely measured 
at established gauging stations. The Gila, flowing in a pervious 
bed of low gradient, is in varying proportions an underground river, 
and rising and sinking as it does, according to local formations, can 
not be measured definitely by ordinary methods. The amount of 
surface flow, as estimated from the not very continuous or prolonged 
measurements available, indicates a limited but comparatively con¬ 
stant stream in the upper Gila near the New Mexico line, but an 
increasingly variable and inconstant irrigating supply between San 
Carlos and Yuma. The San Pedro and the Santa Cruz Rivers resem¬ 
ble the Gila and give tribute to it mainly in flood waters. The seepage 
from the Salt River irrigation appears near its confluence with the Gila 
and affords a very constant and reliable supply for the irrigation of the 
lands near Buckeye and Arlington. Below the latter point the Gila 
supply is so uncertain as to preclude satisfactory farming operations. 

An approximate idea of the run-off of the Gila at the New Mexico 
line, at Florence, midway of the Territory, and at Yuma may be 
derived from somewhat fragmentary observations taken during the 
last 20 years. At the New Mexico line the combined measurements 
at Cliff, N. Mex., on the Gila River, and at Alma, N. Mex., on the 
tributary San Francisco River, approximate the upstream supply 
upon which irrigation in Graham County depends. Available meas¬ 
urements, by years, as given in the reports of the United States 
Geological Survey, are as follows: 1 


Run-off oj Gila and San Francisco Rivers near the Arizona-New Mexico line. 


Date. 

Place of measurement. 

Run-off. 

1905. 

The Gila at Cliff, N. Mex. 

Acre-feet. 

2 190,100 
263,300 

1905 

The San Francisco at Alma, N. Mex. 

1906.. 

Total. 

453,400 

The Gila at Cliff, N. Mex. 

243,760 

111,812 

1906. 

The San Francisco at Alma, N. Mex. 

1907 3 . 

Total. 

355,572 

The Gila at Cliff, N. Mex. 

373,020 

147,859 

1907. 

The San Francisco at Alma, N. Mex. 


Total. 

520,879 



1 U. S. Geol. Survey, Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers, Nos. 175, pp. 162, 170; 211, pp. 123, 128. 

2 Jan. 1-May 22, not measured. 

3 U. S. Reclamation Service records. 

[Bull. 235] 































47 


# 


The average for these three years is about 443,000 acre-feet, 
although measured incompletely. Even this figure is somewhat 
high, inasmuch as the run-off was exceptional for 1905 and 1907. 
Only a small portion of this run-off is available for irrigation, how¬ 
ever, without storage, as is shown by the records by months for the 
three years of measurement. 

Combined flow, by months, oj the Gila at Cliff, N. Mex., and the San Francisco at Alma, 

N. Mex. 1 


Year. 

Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. - 

Apr. 

May. 

June. 

July. 

1905. 






17,477 
4,356 
13,195 

9,641 

7,350 

15,063 

1906. 

17,430 
143,188 

44,200 

90,740 

97,200 

54,453 

49,000 

34,528 

17,210 

17,266 

1907 2 . 

Mean. 

80,309 

67,470 

75,826 41,764 

• 

17,238 

11,676 

10,685 



Year. 

Aug. 

Sept. 

Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 

Total. 

1905. 

14,676 
32,070 
54,290 

21,540 

8,590 

45,917 

11,966 

5,846 

17,537 

93,350 

7,220 

20,320 

44,669 

65,100 

14,382 


1906. 

355,572 

520,879 

1907 2 . 

Mean. 

33,679 

25,349 

11,783 

40,297 

41,384 





1 U. S. Geol. Survey, Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers, Nos. 175, pp. 1G2, 170; 211, pp. 123, 128. 

2 U. S. Reclamation Service record's. 


The fluctuations here shown range from 4,356 acre-feet in June, 
1906, to 143,188 acre-feet in January, 1907. As in other unregulated 
southwestern streams, irrigation is to a considerable extent limited 
by the summer minimum flow, usually occurring in June. 

At Florence, midway of the course of the Gila River and below the 
mouth of the San Pedro River, probably the best knowledge of aver¬ 
age flow is due to J. B. Lippincott, 1 who, on a basis of 60 months’ 
observations made at various times from 1889 to 1899, estimated an 
average annual run-off of 469,093 acre-feet. This estimate, however, 
did not include the wet season of 1891. The mean monthly flows in 
acre-feet of the Gila River at Florence, as compiled by Lippincott, 
are as follows: January, 40,828; February, 26,675; March, 23,783; 
April, 20,481; May, 8,030; June, 4,072; July, 65,745; August, 77,247; 
September, 52,503; October, 83,109; November, 36,491; December, 
30,129; annual total, 469,093. 

The Gila River is not infrequently dry at Florence, sometimes for 
several months at a time, as, for instance, from March to July, 1899. 
Without storage, therefore, agriculture at this point is less assured of 
its necessary irrigating supply than near the New Mexico boundary, 
where, even in driest years, the river has never failed entirely. 

At Yuma the Gila is even more variable than at Florence, and the 
discharge has ranged, it is said, from nothing for a period of a year 

i U. S. Geol. Survey, Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper, No. 33, p. 30, 

[Bull. 235] 






















































48 


% 


to as high as 3,665,148 acre-feet in 1905. Following are available 
records of annual discharge of the Gila near Yuma, Ariz., taken lrom 
the reports of the United States Geological Survey: 1 


Annual discharge of Gila River near Yuma, Ariz. 


Year. 

Acre-feet. 

Year. 

Acre-feet. 

1903.. 

61,196 
226,400 

1905. 

3,665,000 

1,790,000 

1904. 

1906. 




With such fluctuations in the unregulated supply, agriculture has 
never succeeded in establishing itself permanently on the lower Gila 
to any important extent. 

It may be stated summarily that the fluctuations in water supply 
become more and more extreme from the source to the mouth of the 
Gila. In obedience to this fact and to the increasing appropriations 
of the headwaters, agricultural development for the past 40 years 
has readjusted itself gradually toward upstream locations. In the 
absence of measurements the actual use made of the waters of the 
Gila may be best estimated by the areas of land irrigated therefrom. 
This amounted in 1909 to about 36,000 acres adjacent to the main 
stream above its confluence with the Salt. This area, assuming an 
average application of 4.5 feet in depth on the land, would account 
for about 160,000 acre-feet of water per annum. Although this is 
but little more than 30 per cent of the supposed average flow above 
the Salt River junction, without storage it is very nearly the maxi¬ 
mum possible use of this stream. The remaining flood waters 
escape, part being absorbed by the porous river bed and the residue 
sometimes reaching the sea. 

Storage possibilities .—A considerable number of storage sites exist 
on or near the Gila River, the chief ones being given in the following 
table: 

Storage sites on the Gila River. 


Site. 

Stream. 

Location. 

Height of 
dam by 
contour. 

Capacity. 

Red Rock. 

Gila. 

Above Duncan in New Mexico 

Feet. 

100 

Acre-feet. 

80,000 

135,000 

12,000 

256,000 

241,000 

344,000 

174,000 

51,000 

Alma. 

San Francisco. 

Alma, N. Mex. 

Dix Creek. 

.do. 

22 miles north of Clifton.. 

110 

140 

130 

153 

150 

130 

Guthrie. 

Gila. 

Guthrie, Ariz. 

San Carlos. 

.do. 

San Carlos, Ariz. 

Riverside. 

.do. 

Riverside, Ariz.... 

Buttes. 

.do. 

Near Florence, Ariz. 

Queen Creek. 

Queen Creek. 

.do.!. 

Total. 



1,293,000 






1 U. S. Geol. Survey, Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers Nos. 100, p. 27; 133, p. 206; 175, p. 166; 211, 


[Bull. 235] 

* 




















































49 


Storage sites on the Gila River, however, though of large total 
capacity, seem peculiarly subject to misfortune. The Guthrie site 
is traversed from end to end by the Arizona and New Mexico Rail¬ 
road; the San Carlos site is at present (March, 1911) in controversy 
between railroad and irrigation interests; the Riverside site is con¬ 
trolled by mining properties located within its limits; and both the 
Riverside and the Buttes sites are traversed by the Arizona Eastern 
Railroad. Further storage than that described above is believed to 
be possible by means of a series of comparatively small earth-embank¬ 
ment reservoirs in the tributary valleys southwest of Florence, and a 
large site exists on the main stream north of Sentinel, Ariz., 90 miles 
east of Yuma. 

Aside from the administrative difficulties in which most of them 
are involved, prospective reservoirs on the Gila are all endangered 
by the excessively muddy character of the flood waters which would 
be used to fill them. Daily samples of such waters were collected 
during August and September, 1900, and allowed to settle for one 
year. The sediment deposited was then found to occupy from 5.2 
to 17.4 per cent of the original volume of the muddy waters. 1 No 
economical method of removing such volumes of sediments from 
large and deep reservoirs having yet been demonstated, the life of 
such reservoirs, on muddy streams, is a matter as yet under discus¬ 
sion by engineers. It is estimated that the Buttes reservoir, with 
174,000 acre-feet capacity, would fill with sediment in 18.6 years; 
and that the San Carlos site, with 241,000 acre-feet capacity, would 
fill in 28.5 years. 2 

The problem of storage on the Gila River, therefore, is at present 
fraught with serious difficulties, both administrative and physical, 
which will probably tend to retard further development in irrigation 
on this important stream for years to come. 

SMALL STREAMS. 

There are a number of small streams, besides the four main rivers 
already discussed, which altogether afford water supply for a con¬ 
siderable acreage. These small streams are quite completely utilized 
as to their critical minimum flow, and storage is projected here and 
there for the utilization of flood waters. Few measurements have 
been made upon these small streams, the amount of use of which can 
be best approximated by multiplying irrigated acreages by an assumed 
average water requirement. 

Upper Verde River .—The Upper Verde River, including Clear, 
Beaver, Oak, Dragoon, and Granite Creeks, is tapped by a large 

1 Arizona Sta. Bui. 44, p. 188. 

2 U. S. Geol. Survey, Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 33, p. 40. 

72293°—Bull. 235—11-4 






50 


number of small ditches which utilize upstream waters not included 
in the Salt River supply discussed on preceding pages. Probably 
the best estimate now available of water used in this region is that 
made by the subcommittee representing the Salt River Valley water 
users, which visited the Verde Valley in July, 1901, and measured 
the ditches and areas irrigated. 1 2 At that time about 7,000 miner’s 
inches of continuous flow was in use. This is 175 cubic feet per 
second, or 350 acre-feet per day, or 70,000 acre-feet for an irrigating 
season of about 200 days. This amount of flow was applied to about 
7,650 acres, indicating probably a too liberal use of water in the dis¬ 
trict, although a portion returns as seepage to the river channel and 
was used again downstream. It is stated that since 1901 not much 
additional irrigation has been undertaken, so that with small increase 
this estimate still stands. 

San Pedro and Santa Cruz Rivers .—These rivers are tributary to 
the Gila River from the south. They, resemble the Gila in character 
of water supply, which is most constant near their sources, but fluc¬ 
tuate between floods and complete dryness along their lower courses. 
Measurements of both streams midway of their courses have been 
made at Charleston and Tucson, Ariz., as follows: 


San Pedro River at Charleston, Ariz.; 2 Acre-feet. 

1904 (April to December). 115, 300 

1905 . 45, 200 

1906 (January to August). 29,100 


Approximate average. 63, 200 


Santa Cruz River (including ditches) at Tucson: 3 

1906 . 22, 370 

1907 . 37,200 

1908 . 22,530 

1909 . 22,275 


Approximate average. 26,100 


But measurements at any one point on streams of this character are 
of little value in showing the entire run-off. Flowing in pervious 
beds, such waters are forced to the surface only at points where they 
are confined by underground barriers and spread out and disappear 
rapidly in the wide, sandy valleys. Probably the best method of 
approximating the available water supply from such imperfectly 
measured streams is to multiply the irrigated acreage by the assumed 
average depth in feet of water applied. Estimated in this manner, 
the San Pedro, with about 5,800 irrigated acres, and an average 

1 Water-Supply and Irrigation on the Verde River and Tributaries, 1901, by O. A. Turney. 

2 U. S. Geol. Survey, Water-Supply and Irrigation Papers Nos. 133, p. 211; 175, p. 173; 211, p. 130. 

3 Arizona Sta. Bui. 64, pp. 115, 116. 

[Bull. 235] 

















51 


application of 3.5 feet in depth to the land, affords about 20,000 
acre-feet of water annually. Similarly, the Santa Cruz and tribu¬ 
taries, with about 6,000 irrigated acres and an average application of 
3.5 feet deep applied, affords about 21,000 acre-feet annually. 

Storage sites exist on both the San Pedro and the Santa Cruz 
Rivers. Just below Charleston, on the San Pedro, a dam 120 feet 
high would impound about 120,000 acre-feet of flood waters, which 
amount is occasionally available from this stream. All known sites 
on the Santa Cruz are broad and shallow, and are favorable to the 
construction of retaining embankments of earth of comparatively low 
elevation. The Santa Cruz Reservoir Land Co. is now constructing 
(January, 1910) one such reservoir 50 miles northwest of Tucson. 
This company proposes to develop 295,000 acre-feet of storage capa¬ 
city by means of an earthen dam 22,200 feet long with a maximum 
height of 45 feet. 


Bill 


Williams 


Boric .—This stream, 


which drains west-central Ari¬ 


zona and empties into the Colorado River, is as yet unmeasured, but 
is known to vary from a few miner’s inches to occasional floods of 
large volume. A reservoir site is said to exist 40 miles east of its 
mouth at the junction of the Big Sandy and the Santa Maria Creeks. 

Other small supplies .—Throughout central and eastern Arizona 
small creeks are being more and more closely utilized. Even the 
waters pumped from mines at Tombstone and Bisbee are employed 
in gardening operations. These scattered increments of water, by 
reason of their proximity to mining markets, are often very valuable 
and yield their owners excellent returns for fruit and produce. The 
area irrigated from these small creeks and springs may be approxi¬ 
mated at 4,300 acres scattered throughout the Territory, mostly at 
higher elevations. This area, at 4 feet in depth of water required a 
year, means a total annual water resource of 17,000 acre-feet. 


SEEPAGE AND RETURN WATERS. 


The initial application of irrigating waters, however, does not in 
many situations terminate its usefulness. A considerable percentage 
of the water applied to the soil may work its way back gradually to 
stream channels and again be taken and applied. In certain of our 
irrigated districts, where soils are pervious, gradients steep, and 
the lands disposed in comparatively narrow areas along river courses, 
conditions are very favorable for the return of seepage waters. The 
Upper Verde and Gila Rivers in Graham County and the Salt River 
are examples of streams whose waters are thus in part used over 
and over again. Decreasing increments of the waters of Salt River 
are thus used not less than four times between their first application 
at the head of Salt River Valley and their last appearance at Arling- 

[Bull. 235] 


52 


ton. As much as 65 per cent of the original application has been 
found to be recovered and again applied along the Upper Gila River, 1 
and in Salt River Valley 30 per cent of return waters has been 
observed. 2 No data are available as to the actual amount of seepage 
made use of on the streams mentioned, but the return waters from 
Salt River Valley and from the Gila are in part measured separately 
and applied to subjacent lands, including the Buckeye and Arlington 
districts to the west of the confluence of these two streams. About 
13,000 acres are thus irrigated, which, allowing for the very liberal 
use of water made here, would require the application of approxi¬ 
mately 80,000 acre-feet of water annually. W. H. Code, 3 measuring 
these return waters in 1900, when they were less than normal, found 
a total of 260 cubic feet per second, or about 190,000 acre-feet of 
water annually between Tempe and Gila Bend. Improved water 
supply with increased and prolonged irrigation in upstream districts 
will result in augmenting the return flow so that this water resource 
will in future become of larger volume and importance than at pres¬ 
ent. The return waters now in evidence from the Salt and Gila River 
valleys and not otherwise included in the above estimates may there¬ 
fore be stated conservatively at 200,000 acre-feet annually. 

RESERVOIR SITES. 

As has been noted already, storage possibilities of greater or lesser 
size exist on nearly all of the streams of the Territory. About twenty- 
five of these have been surveyed by the United States Geological Sur¬ 
vey and the United States Reclamation Service, or by private parties, 
and their capacities ascertained or estimated. The location of these 
reservoir sites is shown on Plate II, page 28, and their capacities at 
the highest contours are given in the following table: 


Capacity of reservoir sites in Arizona. 


No. 

Name of reservoir. 

Contour. 

Capacity. 

Authority. 

1 

Laguna. 

Feet. 

4 19 

Acre-feet. 

25,650 
1,300,000 
1,-500,000 
15,993 
117,567 
54,298 
108, 644 

U. S. Reclamation Service. 

Do. 

2 

Bill Williams. 

75 

3 

Aquarius. 

250 

Arizona Republican, Mar. 21. 

U. S. Reclamation Service. 

Do. 

4 

Bulls Head. 

20 

5 

Tucker Flat. 

50 

G 

Le Roux. 

35 

Do. 

7 

Woodruff. 

100 

Do. 

8-9 

Forks. 

85 

147,943 
13,000 

Do. 

10 

Udall. 

Private correspondence. 

Do. 

11 

Lyman. 


20,005 
( 5 ) 

60,000 
150,000 
50,000 

12 

South Gila. 

4 50 

U. S. Geological Survey. 

Personal correspondence. 

U. S. Geological Survey. 

Do. 

13 

Walnut Grove. 

135 

14 

Agua Fria. 

150 

15 

Frog Tanks. 

100 


1 U. S. Geol. Survey, Ann. Rpt. 1899-1900, pt. 4, pp. 343-347. 

2 U. S. Dept. Agr., Office Expt. Stas. Bui. 104, pt. 2, p. 104. 

3 U. S. Dept. Agr., Office Expt. Stas. Bui. 104, pt. 2, pp. 103-104. 

4 Height of dam already constructed. 

5 Capacity not ascertained, but very great. 


[Bull. 235] 


























53 


Capacity of reservoir sites in Arizona —Continued. 


No. 

Name of reservoir. 

Contour. 

Capacity. 

Authority. 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 
29 

New River... 

Feel. 

Acre-feet. 

U. S. Geological Survey. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

U. S. Reclamation Service. 

U. S. Geological Survey. 

Do. 

Personal correspondence. 

U. S. Geological Survey. 

Do. 

Do. 

Personal correspondence. 

U. S. Geological Survey. 

U. S. Reclamation Service. 

Cave Creek.... 

Horseshoe. 

McDowell. 

Roosevelt. 

Queen Creek. 

Florence Canal. 

Santa Cruz Reservoir Land Co.. 

Buttes. 

Riverside. 

San Carlos. 

Dix Creek. 

Guthrie. 

San Pedro. 

100 
150 
i 210 
i 284 
130 

i 45 
150 
153 
130 
110 
140 
120 

' 100,000 
204,935 
279,635 
1,284,000 
50,665 
( 2 ) 

295,330 
174,040 
344,308 
241,396 
12,000 
255,800 
120,000 


1 Height of dam already constructed. 2 Capacity s ma ll. 


GROUND WATERS. 

WATERS WITHIN 50 FEET OF SURFACE. 

Surface flow, however, by no means exhausts the water resources 
of the Territory. Beneath the surface in favorable locations there 
is immense capacity for the storage of flood waters. These ancient 
valleys are filled with, detritus from adjacent mountain ranges and 
may contain in the interstices of their porous contents 20 to 40 per 
cent of their volume of water. The storage possibilities of such a 
valley are illustrated by the disastrous flood of 1903 at Clifton. This 
flood was 30 feet deep, and after destroying the town, passed down 
the Gila River, but disappeared entirely before it reached the head 
of the Buckeye Canal, 180 miles below, the entire flood, with the 
exception of the minor portion that found its way into ditches or 
escaped by evaporation, having been absorbed into the underground 
storage. 1 Irrigated valleys in like manner fill up with water escaping 
by percolation from the surface where it is applied. The ground- 
water level, due to this cause, in some parts of the Salt and Upper 
Gila River valleys has risen from a depth of 20 feet or more to the 
surface. 

There are considerable areas in southern Arizona, as shown by the 
map (PL II, p. 28), where ground waters are found within 50 feet 
of the surface. This is assumed as the maximum depth from which 
irrigating water may be pumped. These ground waters are often 
spoken of as underflow, and sometimes are developed by means of 
ditches dug upgrade to water level. This is not practicable, how¬ 
ever, in some localities, and the utilization of ground waters must be 
mainly by pumping. 

The subject of ground waters within the Territory has as yet been 
studied in only a few localities, and it is impossible therefore to forecast 


i U. S. Geol. Survey, Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper 104, pp. 38, 39. 

[Bull. 235] 
































54 


the extent to which they will be used ultimately, especially as this 
depends not only upon the amount and accessibility of the supply, 
but also upon the cost of pumping and the value of products grown. 
One of the most detailed studies of ground-water supply thus far 
made is that of G. E. P. Smith, who finds that the Rillito Valley 
between Fort Lowell and a point 10 miles west may probably be 
made to supply 23,000 acre-feet annually by pumping. 1 Willis T. 
Lee, in his study of the ground waters of the Gila between the Buttes 
and the Salt River junction, found a reserve of 1,120,000 to 1,960,000 
acre-feet of water within 50 feet of the surface, and estimates that 
each year this store is replenished by an underflow of not less than 
175,000 acre-feet. 2 

The same author finds under Salt River Valley between the Verde 
and the Agua Fria, a reserve of approximately 4,704,000 acre-feet 
of water within 50 feet of the surface, replenished each year by an 
estimated underflow of 287,760 acre-feet. 3 These three streams, in 
the localities studied, are estimated to carry about 500,000 acre-feet 
of ground water annually within pumping distance of the surface 
without drawing upon the reserve. As shown on Plate II (p. 28), 
there are large additional areas along the Agua Fria, New, Hassa- 
yampa, and lower Gila Rivers, and in the Santa Cruz, San Pedro, 
Sulphur Springs, and San Simon Valleys, which also carry ground 
waters within 50 feet of the surface, replenished by underflow derived 
from adjacent mountain ranges. Sulphur Springs Valley, particu¬ 
larly, probably will prove a source of large ground-water supply, 
valuable in supplementing dry-farming operations at times when 
rainfall is inadequate. 

These great bodies of ground water have, for the most part, been 
drawn upon but little. Several successful pumping plants in the 
Salt River Valley have been in operation for something less than 
10 years, and exhaustive pumping plants are under construction by 
the United States Reclamation Service. More or less crude attempts 
at pumping are to be found elsewhere within water-bearing areas, 
but the underground supply is as yet almost untouched. The sig¬ 
nificance of this supply is suggested by the history of irrigation in 
semiarid southern California, south of Tehachapi. Ground waters in 
that region, which was first irrigated from surface streams, now afford 
probably 75 per cent of the whole supply. Arizona is 20 to 25 years 
behind California in the development of its ground-water supplies, 
judging by the chronology of well-drilling operations in the two 
sections. Considering the all-year growing season in southern 

1 Arizona Sta. Bui. G4. 

2 U. S. Geol. Survey, Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper 104, p. 50. 

3 U. S. Geol. Survey, Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper 13G, p. 171. 

[Bull. 235] 



55 


Arizona, the diversity and value of crops, the intensive agriculture 
possible, and the progress being made in pumping economy, Arizona 
is entitled to look with much hope upon the future value of its ground 
waters. It is perhaps not in excess of possibility to place the future 
utilization of groundwaters of the Territory by pumping at 750,000 
acre-feet annually. 

ARTESIAN WELLS. 

There are three well-defined artesian districts within the Territory 
and indications of a fourth. The oldest of these is in the San Pedro 
Valley, extending from just north of Benson, southward for about 
45 miles. This valley was once filled by an ancient lake and is 
bedded with clay strata favorable to the retention, under pressure, 
of artesian waters. These waters are derived apparently from 
adjacent mountain slopes whose run-off is caught under the edges 
of the old lake deposits and confined there until released by artesian 
borings. The first well was discovered in 1885 at St. Davids, 6 miles 
south of Benson. A reconnaissance of the district by the writer, 
in January, 1909, discovered 219 wells, 178 of which were at St. 
Davids. They range from 125 to 800 feet deep, and from 1.5 to 12 
inches in diameter. Most of the flows are small, ranging from as 
small as 2 gallons a minute to a maximum, in one well at Hereford, 
of 180 gallons a minute. The total discharge for the district was 
estimated at about 3,500 gallons a minute, which is equal to 7.8 
cubic feet per second, or about 5,700 acre-feet of water per annum. 

The second artesian district is in Graham County, lying between 
Pima and Solomonville, along the northeast slope of Graham Moun¬ 
tain, roughly parallel to the Gila River.. This district has been 
developed at intervals for a distance of about 20 miles. The water 
supply evidently is derived from the run-off of Graham Mountain, 
which accumulates, with pressure, under clay strata which were 
probably also laid down in the waters of an ancient lake. Artesian 
springs in this district are said to have appeared along the line of an 
earthquake crack opened in 1885. The first well was bored in 1897, 
and there are at the present time about 100 wells, large and small, 
ranging from 80 to several hundred feet in depth, with an aggregate 
flow possibly of 4,000 gallons a minute. This is about 8.9 cubic feet 
per second, or about 6,500 acre-feet per annum, mostly flowing in the 
vicinity of Lebanon and Artesia, 6 to 10 miles, respectively, south 
of Safford. Recently (February, 1911) this district has been consid¬ 
erably extended by the discovery of another large well at San Simon, 
50 miles south, upon the Southern Pacific Railroad. 1 

Forty miles east of Bisbee, at San Bernardino, on the Mexican 
line, is a third small artesian district on the south slope of the 


[Bull. 235] 


1 Not shown on date II. 






56 


Chiricahua Mountains. Ten wells were flowing in 1909, but meas¬ 
urements were not available. This district was not discovered 
until 1905 and its area is unknown. An artesian salt well has been 
known for several years at Adamana, on the Santa Fe Railroad, and 
recently (December, 1909) another well was discovered near St. 
Joseph. At the latter point, at a depth of 400 feet, a flow of 20 
gallons per minute has been secured in a formation probably of 
considerable extent. These discoveries are important, being the 
first artesian water found in northern Arizona, and if sustained by 
further discoveries will be of great value to that region. 

Summarizing all artesian districts, the entire well flow at this 
time is probably not in excess of 15,000 acre-feet per annum. Un¬ 
fortunately, this small but valuable asset is very wastefully handled. 
Drillers, aiming at economy in outlay, usually make the wells of small 
diameter without casing. For this reason they frequently choke and 
their flow is lost subterraneously. Oftentimes small flows are not 
properly stored, but are allowed to run without control, being thus a 
source of injury rather than of benefit to subjacent lands. 

SUMMARY AND ESTIMATE OF WATER SUPPLY. 

Summing up the surface stream flow of the Territory conserved 
by storage and replenished by seepage, and placing a moderate esti¬ 
mate upon the little-known ground waters, the potential, but as yet 
only partly developed, annual water supply for Arizona is as follows: 


Water resources of Arizona. 

Colorado River, portion of flow sufficient to irrigate adjacent 

lands in Arizona. 

Little Colorado River, with storage. 

Salt River, with storage. 

Gila River above the Salt, without storage. 

Upper Verde River, without storage. 

San Pedro River, without storage. 

San Cruz River, without storage. 

Small streams, without storage. 

Seepage waters not included in above estimates, under im¬ 
proved upstream conditions, probably. 

Ground waters within 50 feet of the surface, replenished by 

percolation from irrigation and surface stream flow. 

Artesian wells. 

Total. 


Acre-feet. 

2, 000, 000 
300, 000 
840, 000 
160, 000 
70, 000 
20, 000 
21, 000 
17, 000 

200,000 

750, 000 
15, 000 


4, 393, 000 


In round numbers, therefore, the water supply reasonably within 
expectation in Arizona, as now seen, is between 4,000,000 and 
5,000,000 acre-feet a year. This is sufficient for 1,000,000 acres of 
intensively cultivated land. 

[Bull. 235] 















LAWS AND USAGES RELATING TO IRRIGATION. 

Irrigation law in Arizona, as in most other western common¬ 
wealths, is in a state of development rather than of completion. 
Irri gation practice as it now stands is derived from Mexican law, 
from Mormon customs, and from legislative attempts of American 
irrigators to solve problems new to them. 

OLD MEXICAN LAWS. 

Under the terms of an act of the first legislative assembly in 1864, 
‘‘The regulations of acequias, which have been worked according to 
the laws and customs of Sonora and the usages of the people of 
Arizona, shall remain as they were made and used up to this day.” 1 
The laws and customs of Sonora referred to, transmitted from Spain, 
are based upon Old World experience. Water is strictly appurte¬ 
nant to the land. Distribution is in rotation to users for time in 
proportion to acreage irrigated. Charges for water and for mainte¬ 
nance of main ditches are in proportion to irrigated acreage. In 
• brief, the irrigated acre of land is the unit of rights and of responsi¬ 
bility in the water supply. This legal inheritance, however, applies 
to only a limited acreage in the Santa Cruz Valley, which was under 
cultivation at the time of the erection of Arizona into a separate 
Territory. 

COOPERATIVE ORGANIZATIONS. 

The first American ditches on the Salt, the Gila, and the Little 
Colorado Rivers were built by small companies of farmers who 
labored cooperatively to secure a water supply which, in early days, 
being sufficient for all, aroused no controversy. In course of time, 
appropriations of water and nominally irrigated lands proved to be 
far in excess of actual water supply. Also, many of the older canals 
fell under the control of corporations or were constructed by them. 
Certain ditches, however, including those operated by Mormon farmers, 
maintained their cooperative character, their affairs being managed 
by officers elected by the users of water, and assessments of money 
and of labor for maintenance of ditches being levied in accordance 
with shares or acres owned. The Tempe Canal in Salt River Valley, 
the San Jose, Montezuma, and other ditches on the upper Gila, and 
the canals along the little Colorado have all remained essentially 
cooperative in character. 

Shares of stock in these organizations entitled the owners to their 
proportion of the water flowing in the ditch, but unfortunately these 
shares were not attached to specified areas of land, and the water 
derived from them was sometimes shifted from place to place. These 
floating water rights therefore became a cause of insecurity in values 


[BUll. 235] 


1 Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901, par. 4199. 



58 


of improved lands and were a serious evil, especially when drought led 
to the manipulation of a scant water supply. 

The democratic character of the cooperative ditches, however, has 
made them for the past 40 years of the irrigation history of the 
Territory the most satisfactory means of water supply, but to a con¬ 
siderable extent the internal operation of these ditches has been 
through the consent of those interested rather than through the rigid 
application of the Territorial law. 

DEVELOPMENT OF IRRIGATION LAW IN ARIZONA. 

While the old Mexican acequias and the more modern cooperative 
ditches have in the main operated satisfactorily within themselves, 
the usages governing them apply mainly to limited and contiguous 
acreages and are not adequate to settle the questions which arise in 
connection with the irrigating interests of an entire watershed. 
These necessarily have been matters of Territorial law, an outline of 
whose development and character should be known to all irrigators. 

In the bill of rights, enacted by the first Territorial legislature in 
1864, it is provided that “All streams, lakes, and ponds of water 
capable of being used for the purposes of navigation or irrigation are 
hereby declared to be public property; and no individual or corpora¬ 
tion shall have the right to appropriate them exclusively to their own 
private use, except under such equitable regulations and restrictions 
as the legislature shall provide for that purpose/’ 1 

At the same legislative session it was enacted, with other provi¬ 
sions relating to irrigation, that— 

(1) All rivers, creeks, and streams of running water in the Territory of Arizona are 
hereby declared public, and applicable to the purposes of irrigation and mining, as 
hereinafter provided. 

(2) All the inhabitants of this Territory, who own or possess arable and irrigable 
lands, shall have the right to construct public or private acequias, and obtain the 
necessary water for the same from any convenient river, creek or stream of running 
water. 

(3) It shall be the duty of overseers of ditches to distribute and apportion the water 
in proportion to the quantity to which each one is entitled, according to the land cul¬ 
tivated by him; and, in making such apportionment, he shall take into consideration 
the nature of the seed sown or planted, the crops and plants cultivated; and to conduct 
and carry on such distribution with justice and impartiality. 

(4) During years when a scarcity of water shall exist, owners of fields shall have 
precedence of the water for irrigation, according to the dates of their respective titles 
or their occupation of the lands, either by themselves or their grantors. The oldest 
titles shall have precedence always. 2 

These provisions, which are still a part of the statutory law of the 
Territory, establish that the rivers and streams are in the nature of 

1 Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901, par. 22. 

2 Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901, pars. 4174, 4176, 4190, 4191. 

[Bull. 235] 





59 


a public resource, bestow upon irrigators the right to appropriate 
water from these streams for their lands, specify the beneficial use 
of water upon land, and secure priority of rights to water in the order 
of its application to the land. 

In default of legal machinery wherewith to secure a comprehensive 
and thorough application of these principles to irrigated lands 
within the Territory, abuses demanding judicial or legislative cor¬ 
rection have developed from time to time. Most of these have been 
associated with corporations organized for the purpose of managing 
or constructing ditches, diverting water, and, in some cases, expressly 
for sale, rental, and distribution of water. These organizations, in 
carrying out their purposes, not only deprived certain older canals of 
water rightfully theirs by priority, but public water supply was 
treated as corporate property, and water, instead of being strictly 
appurtenant to the land, was sold to users as a separable commodity. 
The resulting litigation culminated in the Kibbey decision announced 
in 1892. This decision reaffirmed the fact that the water of the 
streams and rivers is public property; that only owners and occu¬ 
pants of land are entitled to appropriate water from the public sup¬ 
ply; that in so doing u no man has a right to waste a drop of water,’’ 
but must apply it economically to the extent of its beneficial use; 
that priority of appropriation by actual use of water constitutes the 
better title to water; and that the right to irrigating water is perma¬ 
nently appurtenant to the land in connection with which it was 
acquired. Moreover, it was affirmed that canal companies are only 
carriers and not owners of water ; that ownership of stock in a 
canal does not constitute ownership of water; and that the rights 
of canal companies are limited to carriage of water to the lands of 
appropriators. 

The court did not specify the rights to water of individual land- 
owners, the case for decision relating not to individuals but to the 
rights of different canal companies in the water supply. In accord¬ 
ance with this aspect of the case the decision provided a chrono¬ 
logical table of totals of irrigated land under each canal year by year. 
A water commissioner was appointed whose duty it was to apportion 
the water between canals according to total prior rights under them. 

The necessary want of explicitness in the decree gave opportunity 
for shifting water rights in violation of the intention of the court. 
Moreover, while the decision was pending an agreement was entered 
into between all but two of the canal companies of Salt River Valley 
whereby the available water supply was divided among them by 
agreement and not according to the provisions of the Kibbey decision. 
The operation of this agreement in default of adequate means to 
enforce the court decree was to defeat the principles of priority and 

[Bull. 235] 


60 


of attachment of water to land. The result was that for the greater 
part of the 15 years following 1892 a majority of the Salt River 
Valley farming population was unlawfully dominated by the water 
companies which controlled the water supply as though it were their 
own instead of acting as distributing agents only. An onerous and 
chaotic condition of affairs supervened in consequence, especially 
during the years of drought that occurred in the late nineties in the 
Salt River Valley, where, in the main, legal questions with reference 
to irrigation in Arizona have been fought out. Various legislative 
attempts were made toward improvement. The Ivy bill, introduced 
into the twenty-first session of the legislature, reaffirmed the original 
water law of the Territory and the essential features of the Kibbey 
decision and, following the Wyoming law, provided machinery for 
making the Arizona law effective. Although defeated, the discussion 
of this bill was enlightening to the water-using public. 

The Fowler bill was passed at this same legislative session, pro¬ 
viding that counties with an assessed valuation of over $8,000,000 
should be enabled to levy a tax for a water-storage fund to be used 
for reservoir construction. This bill has been in effect superseded by 
the National Irrigation Act, the passage of which in 1902 marked the 
beginning of the end of this formative period of irrigation history. 

In accordance with the National Irrigation Act, the Salt River 
Valley Water Users’ Association was organized and incorporated 
in 1903, to provide an adequate supply of water by diversion, storage, 
and pumping, for the lands of holders of shares in the association, 
and to enter into necessary agreements with the United States 
Government whereby to secure the benefits of the reclamation law. 
The articles of incorporation, which before adoption were found to 
meet the views of Government representatives, provide that only 
owners of lands shall hold stock in the association; that this stock 
shall be inseparably appurtenant to lands described in connection 
therewith; that the apportionment of water for irrigation of land 
shall be limited to its beneficial use; and that vested priority rights 
to water should be maintained. The government of the association 
is vested in a council, a board of governors, president, and vice 
president elected by shareholders in the association. These officers 
transact business under restrictions provided in the articles of incor¬ 
poration. This association has been very influential in bringing 
about similar organizations elsewhere. 

Through the medium of this organization and of the United States 
Reclamation Service, arrangements were made resulting in the con¬ 
struction of the Roosevelt Dam for storage and power, and the 
necessary means for distribution of the supply. The cost of construc¬ 
tion is secured by lien on the lands of shareholders and is to be repaid 

[Bull. 235] 


61 


to the United States Government in 10 annual installments without 
interest. When the major portion of the water shares has been paid 
for, the management and operation of the irrigation works, with the 
exception of reservoirs, pass to the owners of the lands irrigated. 

In completion of the preparations for an equitable dispensation of 
benefits flowing from the Roosevelt Dam, the Kent decision, March 1, 
1910, defines the irrigation status of every parcel of land in Salt River 
Valley, and thus secures to each, by virtue of its vested rights in the 
original stream flow, or its share in reservoir water, or both, an 
equitable interest in the now augmented and thoroughly administered 
water supply. 

The situation on the lower courses of the Gila River is even worse 
than the old order of affairs on Salt River, but the possibilities of 
storage point to a similar solution. At Florence, for instance, sev¬ 
eral thousand acres were irrigated in former years from what seemed 
at first a reliable flow, but subsequent diversions of water upstream 
have deprived the prior appropriators of their supply and annihilated 
farm values. By means of storage, should it be found feasible, not 
only can prior appropriations be honored, but more recent develop¬ 
ments in the eastern part of the Territory can be safeguarded in a 
manner precisely similar to that employed in the Salt River Valley. 

It is, in fact, quite generally true in Arizona that storage sites offer 
a means whereby the fundamental principle of priority may be made 
to apply without hardship to those interests which, in default of any 
effective system of control, have developed during the past 20 years 
to the detriment of the first appropriators. It is fortunate that all 
the irrigation rivers, except the Colorado, are practically within the 
Territorial boundaries. In so far as this is true, interstate compli¬ 
cations over the use of irrigating streams can not arise, as they have 
between New Mexico and Colorado over the Rio Grande or between 
Colorado and Kansas over the Arkansas River. 

Summarizing the legal progress and tendencies at the present time 
it may be stated that after many years of costly experience in the 
difficulties incident to water distribution, the people of Arizona are at 
last in a fair way to adopt and practice those simple principles which 
for many centuries have been recognized by irrigators in the arid 
regions of the Old World. 

IRRIGATION ENTERPRISES AND AGRICULTURAL PRACTICE. 

The Territory may be divided into seven somewhat distinct 
districts, each with its own climatic conditions and its own water 
supply, as follows: The Colorado River Valley, the Salt River Valley, 
the Gila River and its tributaries, the Verde River and tributaries, 
the Little Colorado River, districts where rainfall may be supple- 


[Bull. 235] 


62 


mented by irrigation, and grazing ranges supplied by springs and 
wells. 

IRRIGATION IN THE COLORADO VALLEY. 

The alluvial lands bordering the lower Colorado Eiver will probably 
develop into one of the richest agricultural sections of the Southwest. 
The cultivated areas are limited as yet, but a successful beginning has 
been made under the United States Reclamation Service operations, 
and rapid progress in the exploitation of this rich region seems to be 
assured. The peculiar advantages of the region reside in its favorable 
climate, its abundant water supply, and its unusually fertile soils. 

CLIMATE. 

The climate is distinguished by its mild winters, its all-year growing 
season, and the nearly rainless summers, which minimize the losses 
due to untimely precipitation. As commonly observed in arid 
regions, occasional frosts of some severity occur at lower levels, due 
to air drainage. Minimum temperatures recorded 1 to 2 feet above 
the ground, at the Arizona Experiment Station date orchard near 
Yuma for several years past, are as follows: 

Minimum temperature record at experiment station date orchardYuma, Ariz. 



Record below 32° F. 

/ 

Minimum record. 

Winter. 

Number 
of frosts. 

Date. 

Degrees 

F. 

Date. 

1905-6. 

34 

Nov. 29 to Apr. 3... 

20 

21 

23 

24 

17 

Jan.1. 

Nov. 30. 
Feb. 14. 
Nov. 29. 
Dec. 4. 

1906-7. 

39 

Oct. 21 to Mar. 29 

1907-8. 

32 

Nov. 17 to Feb. 16... 

1908-9. 

21 

Oct. 29 to Mar. 13 

1909-10. 

32 

Nov. 8 to Feb. 19... 




These temperatures are too low for citrus culture and will occa¬ 
sionally damage the more tender winter truck crops. The adjoining 
mesas, however, are above the levels where the cold air collects, and 
are not subject to these low minima. The lowest record available 
from Blaisdell Heights, about 80 feet higher than the date orchard, 
is 26° F., and frostless winters have been recorded there. These 
bench or mesa lands, adjoining the Colorado bottoms, are suitable for 
citrus and other slightly frost-resistant crops, but are not adapted to 
such distinctly tropical crops as pineapples, bananas, or coconut 
palms. Maximum field temperatures under shelter, during June to 
September, range from 110° to 116° F., but are relieved to some 
extent by daily breezes coming from the Gulf of California. These 
temperatures permit of an all-year growing season for a succession of 
crops consisting largely of forages and fruits in summer and of grains 

[Bull. 235] 



























63 


and vegetables in winter. The rainfall is usually light, though 
occasionally much damage to fruits and hay is done by unexpected 
downpours in July and August. 

WATER SUPPLY. 

* 

The water supply is in excess of the land and it is only necessary to 
bring it under control. The quality of these waters is usually good, 
ranging from 21 parts soluble salts in 100,000 of water in June floods 
to as high as 125 parts observed in one small October flood coming 
from a salty watershed. 1 In character the salts are white alkaline 
containing a large proportion of calcium sulphate, which is a chemical 
antidote for black alkaline lands. 

The sediments of the Colorado River, considered chemically, are 
beneficial to the soils upon which they are carried by irrigation. 
These sediments have been observed to range from 0.45 to 28.2 tons 
per acre-foot of water, and often contain considerable organic matter 
which is of especial value on light, sandy soils deficient in humus and 
nitrogen. The deposition of sediments in irrigating ditches, however, 
necessitates frequent ditch cleaning. Settling sluices with which to 
partially clarify the supply are a necessary feature of irrigation 
works on this stream. 

SOILS. 

The river-bottom lands of the Colorado Valley range from dense, 
sticky adobe to light sands, the lighter soils predominating. These 
warm sandy soils, draining and working readily, are especially suited 
to intensive cultivation. The heavy soils, which take water slowly 
and bake and crack readily, are more difficult to handle, especially 
when charged with alkali salts. 

The higher mesa soils are for the most part rather coarse sands, less 
fertile than the valley soils and considerably in need of the addition 
of river sediments and of organic manures and the benefits of legu¬ 
minous green manuring crops. The mesa lands are quite rough and 
the river bottoms are diversified with dunes and old river channels. 
Leveling of such lands is necessary in preparing for irrigation. Alkali 
salts are generally present, but not usually in injurious amounts, 
except where ground waters wet the soil surface and there evaporate, 
leaving alkali crusts. Good drainage conditions should be assured 
in connection with irrigation in the region, so that soluble salts may 
be kept under control. The character of the alkali is sometimes 
“black,” containing sodium carbonate; sometimes “white,” consisting 
chiefly of sulphates and chlorids. The tendency of the river waters, 
containing calcium sulphate, will be to ameliorate the black alkaline 
lands and convert the more harmful sodium carbonate to sulphate. 


[Bull. 235] 


1 Arizona Sta. Bui. 44, pp. 202, 203. 




64 


YUMA PROJECT AND OTHER IRRIGATION WORKS. 


The Mohave, Chemehuevi, Yuma, and Cocopah Indians grow 
crops by crude methods in the Colorado flood plain. Millets, corn, 
sorghum, melons, squashes, beans, and other crops are planted in the 
wet ground as the summer flood waters recede, maturing before the 
ground dries out. Without means of controlling the Colorado, how¬ 
ever, these people can not make use of the valuable spring and early 
summer season, which is the flood time of the river. W bite irrigators 
have made a number of attempts to operate pumping plants and con¬ 
struct ditches along 
the stream, in some 
cases with fair success, 
but in most instances 
with failure due to 
floods, changing cur¬ 
rents, sand bars, and 
i n a d equate engineer¬ 
ing devices. 

The principal irri¬ 
gating plants now in- 
s t a 1 le d are: The 
pumping plant of the 
Camp Mohave Indian 
School Reservation; 
the Rio Colorado Land 
and Irrigation Co.’s 
gravity canal system 
below Camp Mohave 
Indian School Reser¬ 
vation ; the pumping 
plant of the Colorado 
River Agency, Parker, 
Ariz.; the p u m ping 
plant (10-inch centrif¬ 
ugal) of the Cibola Canal, Cibola, Ariz.; the centrifugal pumping 
plant of the United States Reclamation Service, at Yuma, Ariz.; the 
scoop wheel; and the gravity canal of the United States Reclamation 
Service, at Yuma. 

The United States Reclamation Service has entered upon the con¬ 
struction of engineering works of the Yuma project near Yuma, 
adequate for the control and utilization of the Colorado River on a 
large scale. The principal features of the work are: 

(1) Laguna Dam, crossing the river 14 miles upstream from Yuma 
(fig. 6). This dam, completed in March, 1909, is 4,780 feet long, 

[Bull. 235] 



Fig. 6 .—Yuma, or Laguna, project. 


















































































































/ 


65 


250 feet wide, up and down stream, and 19 feet high. This broad, low 
structure raises the minimum river level about 10 feet, assuring an 
irrigating supply at all stages of flow of the river. 

(2) The reservoir above the dam and the sluiceways at either end, 
which are designed to clarify the irrigating supply of a portion of its 
sediments, thus lightening the burden of ditch cleaning. 

(3) The main canal, running from the west end of the dam to Yuma, 
where it will cross under the Colorado River to Arizona by means of 
a 14-foot inverted siphon. This is now nearing completion (March, 
1911). 

(4) Levees 73 miles in length along the Colorado and Gila Rivers, 
which are required to prevent untimely flooding of cultivated lands. 
These have been largely completed. 

(5) Drainage, by means of low-level canals and water-elevating 
apparatus, to be provided in order to prevent swamping and accumu¬ 
lation of alkaline salts in the soils. 

(6) Pumping stations, operated in part by power generated at a 
drop in the main canal, which are to elevate water to the bench or 
mesa lands. 

(7) A temporary water supply, which has been provided by means 
of the old Ives and Colorado Valley Pumping and Irrigation Co. 
equipments, and by one of the scoop wheels which is to be used finally 
for drainage work. 

As shown by this outline, the Yuma project provides for every 
contingency incident to a complicated situation. It will soon make 
possible the irrigation of 130,000 acres, as follows: 

Lands to be irrigated under the Yuma 'project. 

In Arizona: 

Gila bottoms. 

Yuma Valley. 

Yuma mesa. 

In California: 

Reservation lands. 

Of this area, 6,179 acres were in crops January, 1910. 

The cost of the project will be about $55 per acre, payable in ten 
annual installments, without interest, beginning after the project is 
declared open. 

FARM PRACTICE. 

Leveling of the land is usually necessary because of the old river 
channels and wind-blown dunes of silt and sand. The buck scraper 
is one of the most effective tools known for moving dirt by horse¬ 
power, and is well adapted to smoothing land, building levees, and 
constructing the wide ditches necessary to carry water in a region of 


Acres. 
20 , 000 
53, 000 
40, 000 

17, 000 


72293°—Bull. 235—11-5 







66 


such low gradient as the Colorado Valley. The cost of leveling land 
and constructing the necessary head ditches with a buck scraper, 
man, and four horses at $5 per day is rarely less than $20 an acre. 

The main crop is alfalfa, which is started easily on new lands, yields 
prompt returns, and enriches the soil. Seven cuttings are harvested, 
and with proper care should yield 7 to 12 tons of hay, salable thus 
far at $10 to $15 per ton. Crops of seed averaging 400 to 500 pounds 
per acre may be harvested. This seed is worth 12 to 17 cents per 
pound. 

Barley and corn also are grown, especially on new land, and yield 
remunerative crops. Eucalypts and date palms are among the 
trees adapted to the district. Following alfalfa, orchards, fruits, 
and vegetables can be grown to excellent advantage under intensive 
cultivation. The rotation of alfalfa with other crops will renew the 
soil, enable the salts, which tend to accumulate with ridge and furrow 
cultures, to be flooded out, and arrest the plant diseases and pests 
incident to certain of these crops. The whole range of products 
enumerated on page 19 is possible in the Colorado Valley region, but 
time has not sufficed to settle the details of agricultural practice. 

The markets at Yuma have been strong thus far, and a good ship¬ 
ping trade with Arizona and California points is possible. During 
three years of mixed alfalfa and truck farming at the Arizona Experi¬ 
ment Station date orchard, the following acreages were cultivated and 
crops having the following gross values produced: 

Acreage and gross values of alfalfa and truck products produced at the Arizona Experiment 

Station date orchard. 


Year. 

Acres. 

Gross value 
of crops. 

1906-7. 

4. 73 

$928. 09 

1907-8. 

5. 46 

1,483. 43 
852. 08 

1908-9. 

5.10 



The amount of labor used each year was such as could be furnished 
for the most part by an industrious family of five. 

Alluvial lands below Yuma are mostly owned privately and can be 
purchased for $50 to $250 per acre, according to their character and 
distance from a railroad. A smaller area or bottoms and a large 
area of mesa lands will be available, probably in 40-acre homesteads, 
under the United States Reclamation Service restrictions when the 
project is complete. This district offers excellent opportunities to 
the homemaker having capital sufficient to purchase a small acreage 
and the necessary horses and tools. In addition, he should have cash, 
or the means of earning $500 to $1,000 the first year. The following 
is a statement of expenses and income derived from the first two 
years’ operations on the station garden mentioned above. 

[Bull. 235] 











67 


Expenses and income for the first two years' oj)crations on a small intensively cultivated 

farm. 

EXPENSES. 


Land, 7.2 acres, at $100 per acre. $720. 00 

Survey and papers. 20. 00 

Leveling, by contract. 124.00 

Fencing, headgate, pump, drive point, small 2-room 

cottage, and shelter for horses. 271. 00 

Team, wagon, plow, harrow, garden tools, mowing 

machine. 615.00 


Total preliminary outlay. $1, 750. 00 

First year: Cash for seed, water, crates, etc. 127. 92 

Second year: 

Seed, water, crates, etc. 226.19 

Improvements. 59. 28 

Hired labor. 72. 00 


Total operating expenses for two years. 485. 39 


Total cost. 2, 235. 39 


RECEIPTS. 


Cash for produce first year. 928.09 

Cash for produce second year.. 1, 483.43 

Total. 2,411.52 


IRRIGATION IN THE SALT RIVER VALLEY. 

Salt River Valley is at this time the largest irrigated district within 
the Territory. Beginning in 1867 irrigation increased rapidly, until 
20 years later the unregulated stream was overtaxed by the demands 
made upon it in times of shortage. Since that time the most impor¬ 
tant problem of the valley has been the adjudication and management 
of the water supply. This problem has been solved through the 
operation of the reclamation law, and, with 561,024 acre-feet of 
water now (April, 1911) in the Roosevelt reservoir, its efficiency is 
demonstrated. 

CLIMATE. 

The climate of Salt River Valley resembles that of the Colorado 
Valley at Yuma, but both its frosts and summer temperatures are 
slightly more extreme, consequent upon a 1,000-foot higher altitude, 
and the absence of tempering gulf winds. The rainfall is sufficient to 
necessitate the protection of hay and other perishable crops, and in 
summer often interferes with the drying of such fruits as figs and 
raisins. 

The severest frosts are at the lowest levels. The slopes adjacent to 
the Phoenix and Salt River Mountains and the high ground near Mesa 
are, however, so mild in winter as to admit of citrus culture. Mini- 

[Bull. 235] 





















70 


at some future time. Figure 7 gives a general view taken when the 
dam was nearing completion. Plate III is a view of the completed 
dam. 

(3) Electric power, already developed through a power canal, and 
further to be developed at the dam and at various sites in river and 
canals below. 

(4) Pumping plants operated by electric power at points where 
ground waters are economically near the surface. The excess of 
power possible under the project may be sold for industrial purposes, 
thus contributing to the repayment of the project. 



Fig. 7.—The Roosevelt Dam, nearing completion, May 10, 1910. 


(5) Drainage plants operated by electric power in cultivated dis¬ 
tricts where ground waters have risen injuriously near the surface. 

(6) Granite Reef diversion dam at the head of Salt River Valley, 
making sure the diversion of regular river flow and storage waters to 
irrigated lands. Temporary diversion dams, destroyed by floods and 
causing loss of irrigating waters at critical times, have been a serious 
drawback heretofore to the region. 

(7) Distributing canals and laterals on both sides of Salt River. 
These now (March, 1910) include main canals as follows (fig. 8): 

North of Salt River: Arizona, Crosscut, Grand—appropriators, 
Maricopa, and Salt River Valley Canals. South of Salt River: Eastern 
and Mesa Consolidated Canals. 


[Bull. 235] 












gmm 


Plate III 


U. S. Dept, of Agr., Bui. 235, Office of Expt. Stations. Irrigation Investigation. 



View of Complete Roosevelt Dam. 











71 


I his project, as outlined above, will secure the irrigation of 240,000 
acres, of which about 190,000 acres will be irrigated with surface 
water, and not less than 50,000 acres with pumped water. 

The Salt River project, as now outlined, will cost about $45 an 
acre for the lands subscribed to the undertaking, or a total expendi¬ 
ture of about $8,000,000. The income from the sale of surplus 
power from Salt River, however, will contribute materially to the 
repayment of the project and will lighten the burden of the 10 annual 
payments upon the shareholders. 

Adding the McDowell and Horseshoe reservoir sites to the project 
would make possible the irrigation of 20 r 000 to 30,000 acres addi¬ 
tional with surface water. The ground-water supply also, which can 



only be roughly estimated at this time, is likely to prove adequate 
for the irrigation of a greater area than that now planned. The 
Buckeye and Arlington districts, while not within the Salt River 
project, are benefited indirectly, as extended irrigation on upstream 
areas will tend to increase their supply of seepage waters. 

FARM PRACTICE. 

Land surfaces in Salt River Valley are very smooth, requiring 
little leveling, and slope from less than 10 to as much as 20 feet to 
the mile. Such slopes afford excellent gradients for ditches, and 
facilitate irrigation. The average cost of bringing land under irriga¬ 
tion in Salt River Valley is therefore minimum. 

Alfalfa, as elsewhere in southern Arizona, is thus far the most 
important crop. It yields five to six cuttings of hay, or, if desired, 

[Bull. 235] 































72 


produces profitable crops of seed; affords two or three months’ pas¬ 
turage, convertible into mutton, beef, and dairy products; endures 
well both extremes of temperature and periods of drought, and, with 
all this, enriches the soil for other crops^ and therefore is perfectly 
adapted to the conditions and needs of the region. Following is a 
fair statement of profits per acre from well-farmed alfalfa: 

Cost of raising alfalfa hay and profit per acre. 

COST. 

Labor—making and stacking five cuttings—6 tons of hay.. $9. 00 


Water. 1. 50 

Labor irrigating. 1. 00 

Incidentals.50 

- $12. 00 

RETURNS. 

6 tons loose alfalfa in stack. 42. 00 

2 months’ pasture for two animals. 6. 00 

- 48.00 


Net gain on 1 acre of hay, not deducting interest 

on investment... 36. 00 


When fed to beef cattle, allowing 2 acres for three animals, the 
statement becomes as follows: 

Cost of producing alfalfa and profits per acre when fed to steers. 

COST. 


Making 3 tons of hay for winter feed. $4. 50 

Water. 1. 50 

Labor irrigating.. 1.00 

Incidentals. .50 


7. 50 


RETURNS. 

900 pounds increase in weight of steers, not deducting shrinkage 

or allowing for loss by accident, at 4.5 cents. 40. 50 

Net gain on 1 acre, not deducting interest on investment.. 33. 00 

Because of high prices for baled hay, often ranging to $15 per ton 
in Salt River Valley in early spring, much alfalfa is sold in that 
form, although a considerable portion of the crop is fed and handled 
in the form of beef. Dairying is profitable also, and several cream¬ 
eries and one condensed-milk factory afford markets for the product. 
Range sheep are prepared for market in increasing numbers on 
alfalfa; bees forage upon it for honey, and even ostriches are satisfied 
with it as their main food staple. 

An important, though recent, feature of agricultural practice in 
Salt River Valley is developing from the successful operation of the 
beet-sugar factory at Glendale. Sugar beets for the factory are 

[Bull. 235] 


















73 


planted from December to February, inclusive, and harvested from 
June to early in August. Cowpeas may then follow the sugar beets 
in time to make a summer crop of 1 to 3 tons of cowpea hay, which 
may in turn be followed by another crop of sugar beets. Meantime 
the waste products from the initial crop of sugar beets may be 
utilized in various ways. The leaves and crowns may be piled with 
pulp from the factory and this carbohydrate ration fed to cattle in 
a balanced combination with cowpea hay from the same ground. 
The molasses waste may be combined also with alfalfa meal and used 
as a concentrated feed. The land may be cropped in this manner 
throughout the year, and the fertility of the soil may be maintained 
by the cowpeas, the irrigating sediments, • and manure from the 
feeding pens. Incidentally, the climate makes possible the preserva¬ 
tion of sugar-beet pulp in piles or pits in the open air, and facilitates 
the drying of the coarse cowpea hay. In this seemingly perfect com¬ 
bination of crops and conditions nothing, theoretically, is removed 
from the land but the sugar and the meat, the elementary constitu¬ 
ents of which are inexhaustably available, without depletion of the 
soil, from the air and irrigating sediments. 

Citrus culture, prospectively the most important fruit-growing 
industry of the valley, is confined to the slopes where orange-killing 
frosts do not occur. The early ripening of oranges in the region is 
a very favorable circumstance, the first shipments often reaching 
eastern markets in time for the Thanksgiving trade. The bright 
color and excellent quality of the fruit, due both to climatic condi¬ 
tions and the absence of citrus pests, is another reason for the high 
prices which have been received for this product. The culture of 
oranges and pomelos, with an assured water supply under the 
Roosevelt reservoir, will expand considerably in those parts of Salt 
River Valley where winter temperatures permit. Cantaloups are an 
established and remunerative crop and are marketed mainly in 
eastern cities through growers’ associations. Ostriches are an inter¬ 
esting and profitable novelty of recent development. In brief, with 
an assured water supply, a remarkable diversity of profitable crops 
possible, and a scientific and intensive agriculture already well under 
way, Salt River Valley is certain to make rapid advancement in 
agricultural practice and development. 

Lands are nearly all in private ownership, and under the project 
are purchasable at $75 to $250 an acre, according to condition, 
character, and locality. The present tendency is toward small farms 
and more intensive cultivation. Reservoir water is, in fact, limited 
to 160 acres for any one user. 

The Buckeye and Arlington districts immediately west of Salt 
River Valley resemble it in climate, soil, and water supply, but there 

[Bull. 235] 


74 


are no railroads. This fact tends to limit the people to those prod¬ 
ucts which can be transported easily to market. Alfalfa seed is one 
of these, the yield and value of which are expressed in the following 
estimate: 

Cost and profits per acre of raising alfalfa seed. 


COST. 

2 tons alfalfa hay sacrificed, at $6 per ton. $12. 00 

Water, 3 months’ supply.25 

Cutting and hauling. 1. 75 

Thrashing, 400 pounds of seed, at 3 cents. 12. 00 

Sacking, at 15 cents per hundred pounds.60 

Hauling, at 25 cents per hundred pounds. 1. 00 

- $27. 60 

RETURNS. 

1 ton alfalfa straw. 4. 00 

400 pounds seed, at 14 cents. 56. 00 

- 60.00 


Net gain on fair average seed crop, not deducting interest.. 32. 40 

In addition to the seed crop, two cuttings of hay and winter pastur¬ 
age are obtained. Much of the crop is fed to beef steers which are 
then driven to Gila Bend or Phoenix for shipment. Land values are 
moderate, ranging from $60 to $120 an acre. Being outside the 
Salt Biver project this district will not share in its cost, although it 
will be benefited by the seepage waters escaping from the upper 
valley. Two canals, the Buckeye and the Arlington, cooperatively 
owned by the farmers, serve these lands which, at present prices, with¬ 
out reservoir payments to be made, and with railroad transportation 
at hand, still offer excellent opportunities to incoming farmers of 
moderate means. 

IRRIGATION ALONG THE GILA RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES. 

The lower Gila Biver from Florence to Yuma is very similar in 
climate and soils to the Salt Biver Valley, but the uncertain surface 
flow, the lack of storage, and a want of knowledge concerning its 
ground waters have thus far nearly prevented agricultural develop- „ 
ment, except under the Florence Canal. 

The upper Gila Biver near the eastern boundary affords a water 
supply adequate for the irrigation of about 23,000 acres between 
Duncan, on the Arizona-New Mexico line, and San Carlos. This 
district, with an altitude between 2,500 and 3,700 feet, is distinctly 
less subtropical than the Colorado and Salt Biver Valleys. Winter 
temperatures range as low as 8° F., a temperature which excludes 
Eucalyptus and citrus trees. The hardier vegetables, such as onions, 
beets, and cabbage, grow through the winter season. Killing frosts 
for tender vegetation cease usually early in April and begin late in 

[Bull. 235] 













75 


October. The climate of the artesian belt, on the north slope of 
Graham Mountain, is somewhat milder than that of the valley 
bottom. 

Soils here, as in other Arizona valleys, subject to the sorting action of 
flood waters, range from light sands to heavy clays. Much of the land 
in this district is steep and rough, and to reduce expense of leveling 
often is irrigated through furrows deep enough to carry water across 
uneven ground. For this purpose a homemade furrower or drag is 
much used, consisting of a heavy beam, to the underside of which are 
fixed four or five shovel blades or similar parts, which furrow the soil 
as the tool is dragged broadside across the field. The steep gradients 
of this district necessitate waste ditches at the lower sides of fields 
to carry off surface waters for use on adjacent lands. 

The irrigating waters are somewhat less saline than those of Salt 
River, ranging from 39 to 120 parts in 100,000 of water during one 
year’s observations. Through the action of irrigating water, alkaline 
salts have accumulated to an injurious extent in some localities, but 
in most cases these accumulations may be washed out by flooding 
and drainage. 

Immense quantities of sediments are carried by Gila River floods, 
due to the eroded condition of the watershed. These sediments have 
been observed to vary from 0.11 ton per acre-foot of water at a time 
of low flow to 128 tons during high water. Such amounts of sediment 
dropped in ditches necessitate expensive cleaning operations and 
require attention when deposited on irrigated fields. If allowed to 
accumulate upon alfalfa or other uncultivated crops they will blanket 
the soil gradually with a more or less impervious layer, which hinders 
access of water and air to the roots of the plants. Thorough cultiva¬ 
tion of soils irrigated with muddy waters is therefore an especially 
important item of farm management in the region. 

IRRIGATION" WORKS. 

Most of the irrigating ditches of the district are small, and are owned 
and operated by individuals and by companies of farmers. The fol¬ 
lowing is a partial list of existing canals named in order from the New 
Mexico line downstream: 

Canals from the Gila River . 

Duncan Valley canals. 1 —In New Mexico: Telles, Rucker, Hughes, Martin, Wilson, 
Hill, Schriver, Johnson. 

In New Mexico and Arizona: Casper and Windham, Valley, Owen, Franklin, 
Model. 

In Arizona: Day, Ward & Courtney, Duncan, Black & McCloskey, Waters. 

1 U. S. Geol. Survey, Ann. Rpt. 1899-1900, pt. 4, p. 336. 

[Bull. 235] 




76 


Solomon Valley Canals: 




irrigated. 


irrigated. 

Brown. 


. 100 

Smithville.... ... 

. 1.760 

Sanchez. 


. 400 

Bryce. 

. 515 

Mejia. 


. 320 

Dodge. 

. 450 

Fourness. 


.. 260 

Nevada. 

. 800 

San Jose. 


. 3,000 

Curtis. 

.... 800 

Michelena. 


. 450 

Kempton. 

. 850 

Montezuma.... 


. 3,750 

Reid. 

. 100 

Union. 


. 2,900 

Fort Thomas. 

. 960 

Sunflower. 


. 400 

Thompson. 

. 240 

Graham. 


. 962 

Military. 

. 400 

Central. 


.. 2,675 

Saline. 

. 36 

Oregon. 


. 1,100 

Zeckendorf. 

. 500 


Between San Carlos and Florence: Shields Canal, Winkleman Canal, Brannaman 
Canal, Florence Canal. 


The United States Reclamation Service has no project under 
construction on the Gila River and the Carey Act is not in opera¬ 
tion in Arizona, so that water developments in this district are 
wholly a matter of private enterprise. 


FARM PRACTICE. 

Alfalfa hay is the principal crop of the district, bringing high 
prices in the several surrounding mining towns. Four to five cut¬ 
tings are harvested, with additional pasture, and in early spring 
hay usually reaches $14 a ton baled, at the cars. The culture of 
alfalfa is developed highly on the upper Gila River. Renovators 
are used to break up silt accumulations and make the soil surface 
receptive to irrigating waters, and hay loaders, improved stacking 
machinery, and gasoline power balers are used. By reason of the 
high price of hay and the convenience with which it is made, dairying 
is but little followed, although with good cows it is more remunerative 
than the raising of hay. Other important crops in this region are oats, 
wheat, and barley. Deciduous fruits produce well, especially pears, 
peaches, and apples. Where the codling moth is under control apples 
of superior quality are grown and marketed in the near-by mining 
markets of Globe, Clifton, Morenci, Douglas, and Bisbee. 

Land values are high by reason of excellent markets, high prices, 
and limited areas under cultivation, ranging from $100 to $200 
per acre. The farms are small, and the people, largely of the Mormon 
faith, incline toward intensive methods of farming. The Arizona 
& New Mexico and the Gila Valley, Globe & Northern Railroads 
traverse the district. 

The San Pedro and Santa Cruz Valle}^s resemble the upper Gila 
agriculturally. St. David on the San Pedro, watered both by stream 


[Bull. 235] 


1 Fifth judicial district court decree, Feb. 10,1906. 





























U. S. Dept, of Agr., Bui. 235, Office of Expt. Static 


Irrigation Investigation. 


Plate IV. 


V-W'/h, - i 

V// 1 '" ' 0 /U ''//„? :] 


" \ \ > *■ 
V/|, y^ TTi 



JEROME 

(5000) 

UPPER VERDE CANAI S 


10-Read 

Wing fie/d 5/-Dick/ t 

? -BEAVER CREEK - 52-Fa//? 

!s4 °°> 12-W/H/ams 53-S.C.Dickinson 

J3-L. 5. Max/ye// 54 -R. Dickinson 

J4-J.C.Max/re// 55- Mart 

15-16, 7V m Schoder56 - Dumas 



~ FOSSJL CREEK - 39-James 
!-2 Jerome Pwr Co. 40-Sherman 
~ GJ-FAR CREEK - 4/-2 Sherman 
J- Jones & dutch ins on43-/V.Ruckaby aultman , 

4- Thompson 44-/7rme/o ( 3200) 

5- 5. Wfhaf/e/d 45 - Chatxez 

6- Ricketts 46 - W///ard 

7- Crane 47-Copp/e 

3 -Morris 48-Do uvn/ng 

9-VKC. Wingf/e/d 49 -Jerome Pwr Co 

" ' 50-Page camp VERDE 

5/-D/ck/nson & Horst C 3o °d f 


F"" CijMJPj 

3 3.^ . I • 'ft.' 


i .£ 


■fiJL cH 



/7 ^\77^77I 

A 


( 4 ooo) 


—($)— 


/7-C.FMahan 

18- W m -Back 

19- Thos. Bristow 

20- F/nney 

2/ - Hoi/jngsheaH 

22- Mrs. diff 

23- Skaggs 

24- Hutcheson 
25 -R Casner 
26-M. Casner 

- OAK CREEK - 
32-Sowar J 


- UPPER VFRDF — 

59-Peters 
60 -Rina 

- DRAGOON CREEK - 

6/ -2, Baker 
63 -Summers 

64- Packard 
- ICERDE R/I/FR - 

65- Duff 
66 -Dykxtra 
67-E.L. Jordan 


Scale 


5 

Miles 


-- 68-77 m Jordan 

33-/na/ian Cardens 69 - Tunne/ 75'-Woods 
34 -Thomas 70 - Cottonwood 76-Pa/s ton 

35-Owensby 7!-Rickey 77-Enterprise 

36 -James, Sr 72-Humbert 78-Eman 

37-Robinson 73-OF. - P/NE CREEK 

38 -Daugherty 74-Eureka 79-Se/t/ers 


(Note —The original map, of 
which this is a copy, was 
made by E nq’r 0.A.Turney 
in 1901) 



.,4'h &sq ° 


Upper Verde River Canals. 


































' • - ! . ■<->. • ; - <. ; J • .!■ . . - . 1 


' 

. 

■ 



- 

' 


-v •• 




1 


. 





■ 


c . 


/ y * 





■ 








J'C, - 

*'■ 1 v X ■ 
r■\ C: N * 

: "■ 

,.• ■ - 

° • - 

— V ■ ' X " 

' . r :' .X.V • 

\ ' . • - 






• . 

■* ’ 



' ■ •' • • 










£ ex 






. 






















. 





























77 


flow and by wells, is a place of gardens, the produce from which 
finds a ready market in Bisbee and vicinity. The Santa Cruz Valley 
is less developed than the San Pedro, partly because railroad con¬ 
nections have not been so good until recently. Summer flood 
waters are utilized on both these streams for a quick-growing crop 
of corn planted in July and harvested in October, while in similar 
manner the winter rains afford water for crops of wheat and barley 
harvested in May. 

About 45 small canals take water from the San Pedro River, and 
probably 60 draw upon the Santa Cruz and its tributaries. The 
El Paso & Southwestern and the Southern Pacific Railways in the 
San Pedro, and the Southern Pacific in the Santa Cruz Valley afford 
transportation facilities. Ground waters in considerable quantity 
underlie both these valleys and are being developed in considerable 
quantity by artesian wells on the San Pedro and by pumping plants 
along the Santa Cruz. 

IRRIGATION ALONG THE VERDE RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES. 

The upper Verde River, including Clear, Beaver, Oak, and Dragoon 
Creeks, is distinctly a deciduous fruit-growing district, producing 
the finest apples, peaches, pears, and other temperate-region fruits 
grown in Arizona. The altitude is 3,500 to 5,500 feet; the winters 
are sharp, with occasional snow, and the summers milder than in the 
larger, lower irrigated valleys. The farms are small for the most 
part, being situated in the nooks and angles of comparatively narrow 
creek valleys The numerous small ditches are owned by individuals 
or small companies of farmers. Alfalfa, corn, and grains are con¬ 
siderably grown under some of the large canals in the main Verde 
Valley. Jerome and Flagstaff afford markets for fruits and vege¬ 
tables, and the United Verde and Pacific Railway at Jerome affords 
further outlet for fruits to more distant points. (PI. IV.) 

There are a number of small tracts throughout central and south¬ 
eastern Arizona where altitude and limited water supply combine, 
suitable for deciduous orchards and market gardens. These are 
often very remunerative when situated convenient to mining towns. 

IRRIGATION ALONG THE LITTLE COLORADO RIVER. 

The northeastern plateau, drained by the Little Colorado River, has 
an altitude of 5,000 to 7,000 feet. The climate is temperate in char¬ 
acter, with cold winters and a summer season similar to that - of 
Kansas or Kentucky. Rainfall ranges from 8 to 20 inches, but the 
watershed is favorable to the rapid loss of stormwaters, and without 
storage the irrigated area must remain small. Railroad facilities are 
limited to the Santa Fe, which does not connect immediately with the 
larger irrigated settlements. 

[Bull. 2351 


78 


Alfalfa yields two to three cuttings a year. Winter wheat and 
barley are grown, and summer crops of corn. Vegetables and decid¬ 
uous fruits are also successful, sometimes without irrigation, at 
higher elevations. Farming in this district is combined with the 
ranging of sheep and cattle. Cattle formerly predominated, but 
in recent years sheep have become the main industry. The following 
statement of operations of a representative sheep owner for one 
year wifi afford an insight into expenditures and profits of this 
business: 

Beginning with November 1, 1908, with 4,000 ewes, the owner’s 
account for one year is as follows: 

Expenditures and profits of sheep raising. 

EXPENSES. 


Wages of 4 men, November to May. $1, 200 

Wages of 6 men, May to November. 1, 800 

Wages of 8 extra men, 1 month in lambing time. 400 

Buck herding. 150 

Dipping once. 160 

Shearing. 280 

Chuck wagon and team. 50 

Salt. 100 

Renewal of bucks. 300 

Miscellaneous items. 100 

County taxes.. 250 

Forest reserve tax. 360 


Total expenses. $5,150 

RETURNS. 

26,600 pounds of wool, at 16 cents per pound. 4, 256 

2,450 lambs, at $3 each. 7, 350 

- 11, 606 

Profits, not deducting interest or owner’s time. 6, 456 


The net increase of lambs, after deducting 15 per cent taken by 
coyotes and wildcats, was 70 per cent, or 2,800. Three hundred and 
fifty of these were required to replace ewes lost during the season. 
Conditions were favorable and profits high for the period stated. 
Forest Service restrictions limit the number of sheep permitted in 
reserves and have in a measure secured the industry against losses 
incident to overstocking. 

Water storage is essential to increase of agriculture in this district, 
which, during the 35 years since its first settlement by Mormon 
farmers, has been developed to the full extent of its dependable 
water supply. 

[Bull. 235] 





















79 


FARMING WITH RAINFALL SUPPLEMENTED BY IRRIGATION. 

In those portions of Arizona having 10 or more inches of rainfall 
annually so-called dry-farming methods, supplemented by irrigation 
at critical times, will often mature crops successfully. During occa¬ 
sional wet seasons, as the winter of 1905, sufficient moisture falls to 
make crops without unusual effort on the part of the farmer, but rain¬ 
fall in the Southwest is too variable in both time and amount to be 
depended upon. It is essential, therefore, in the average year, for 
the dry farmer to have available a supplementary supply, perhaps to 
bring up seed in a dry soil, or to mature a crop which otherwise would 
be lost through a failing rainfall. In practice, as it now begins to take 
form, this supplementary supply is secured either by small water 
storages possible on many sites in swales and little valleys near the 
crests of our watersheds or by pumping from the somewhat extensive 
areas of our valley bottoms, where ground water is found at 50 feet 
or less from the surface. 

One of the largest supplies of supplementary ground water for 
pumping is that of Sulphur Springs Valley, which will serve as an 
illustration. In May, when corn, beans, melons, etc., may be planted 
to the best advantage, the soil usually is dry because of the preceding 
rainless months. A single irrigation in the seed furrows will cause 
germination and carry the plants until the rains begin in July. This 
single supplementary irrigation, therefore, even if costly, is of great 
value in securing an early start and a matured crop. The seeding 
time for wheat, barley, etc., in this valley is October, which usually 
is a dry month also. Supplementary irrigation at this time is simi¬ 
larly useful, and in many cases irrigation is required again in the 
spring to bring the crops to maturity. The rainfall of this and simi¬ 
lar valleys, although in itself inadequate and untimely for the sure 
maturing of crops, may be utilized with the help of ground waters 
within easy reach of pumps. 

In the ways suggested above—by conserving the rainfall, supple¬ 
menting it with flood, reservoir, and ground waters, and by employing 
varieties suited to arid regions, considerable areas will be reclaimed 
gradually. This expectation is encouraged by the fact that for por¬ 
tions of Algeria, with similar climate and a rainfall of 10 to 16 inches 
per annum, recent statistics give the following productions of different 
kinds: 

Yield of crops in Algeria. 


Crop. 

Production 
per acre. 

Total product. 

Wine... 

.gallons.. 

1,000 

175,000,000 

Wheat. 

.bushels.. 

10 

24.500,000 

Corn... 


8 

58,000,000 


[Bull. 235J 












80 


Even at the beginning of operations in comparable locations in 
southeastern Arizona, part crops of beans, corn, sorghum, and melons 
indicate final success by the methods above suggested. 

GRAZING RANGES. 

Springs and deep wells throughout the grazing sections of the 
Territory are of great value, since they are the key to the adjoining 
range. A Hereford steer will travel about 8 miles between water 
and feed, so that the strategic value of occasional springs in the 
more arid districts is evident. For the same reason heavy expense 
is incurred sometimes to secure water where there is a desirable 
range. An instance is the Fresnal well, 786 feet deep, southwest of 
Tucson. 

The range country for the most part is used as a breeding ground, 
and the increase is shipped as yearlings and 2-year-old stock to the 
irrigated valleys of Arizona and southern California, to be finished 
on alfalfa. Under the old conditions of free range without govern¬ 
mental control the cattle business was a very uncertain one, being 
very profitable in years with abundant and timely rainfall, but 
disastrous in years of drought when feed and even stock water was 
short. It is difficult to make a fair statement of income available 
from range cattle at this time, conditions being generally severe, 
with an outcome varying each season from serious loss to fair and 
easy profit, according to local circumstances affecting the owner’s 
operations. 

THE AGRICULTURAL PRESENT AND FUTURE. 

On the basis of present agricultural practice, of an approximately 
known water supply, and of irrigation history in older States, it is 
possible to outline roughly at this time the future of irrigation in 
Arizona. 

AREAS NOW UNDER CULTIVATION. 

The area actually cropped in the Territory during the year 1909, 
as ascertained by exact data for United States Reclamation Service 
projects, and by personal reconnaissance and correspondence for other 
districts, is about as follows: 

Areas cultivated in 1909. 


Yuma Valley, United States Reclamation Service project Acres. 

(January, 1910). 6,179 

Colorado Valley, Camp Mohave to Laguna. 500 

Salt River Valley, United States Reclamation Service project 

(January, 1910). 129,571 

Buckeye and Arlington districts. 14, 000 

[Bull. 235] 






81 


Gila Valley from Monument to San Carlos, including Indian Acres. 


reservations. 12, 700 

Gila Valley from San Carlos to San Jose. 21, 000 

Gila Valley from San Jose to the New Mexican line. 2, 700 

San Francisco, Blue, Eagle, and Pinal Creeks. 820 

San Pedro Valley, excluding artesian waters. 5, 800 

Santa Cruz River and tributaries. 6, 000 

Upper Verde River and tributaries. 7 650 

• • • ^ ^ 
Little Colorado River and tributaries. 10, 650 

Miscellaneous small streams and springs. 3, 050 

Indian lands not included above. 5 ; 000 

Irrigation from mine waters. 700 

Artesian irrigation at St. Davids, San Bernardino, Lebanon, and 

Artesia.. 1,450 


Total irrigated area. 227,770 


Certain of the areas included in this statement are not farmed the 
year around owing to fluctuating water supply, but for irrigated 
land that is actually cropped at least once a year the above total is 
probably within 5,000 acres, or 2 per cent, of being correct. 

There are limited additional areas on higher mountain slopes 
and in the northern parks which are farmed on rainfall, but these 
probably do not exceed 10,000 acres actually cropped, even including 
the beginnings in dry farming now under way in Sulphur Springs 
Valley. 

ESTIMATED AREA POSSIBLE TO CULTIVATE. 


With a possible water supply of 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 acre- 
feet annually, the limit of intensive irrigation in Arizona may be set 
at 800,000 to 1,000,000 acres, divided among different watersheds, 
approximately as follows: 


The Colorado Valley between Camp Mohave and the Mexican Acres. 

line. 350, 000 

The Little Colorado Valley. 100, 000 

The Salt and Verde Rivers. 280, 000 

The Gila and tributaries. 140, 000 

Small streams and wells. 30, 000 


Total 


900, 000 


The use of a portion of the ground-water supply to supplement 
rainfall will result in the cultivation of additional areas of less inten¬ 
sively cultivated land of unknown extent. For gardens in towns and 
in favorable locations, for stock water supply, and lor an increasing 
number of summer homes at higher elevations, there are also being 
developed numerous small waters of large aggregate value. Reckon¬ 
ing that each two irrigated acres will, directly or indirectly, add one 
to'the population, and including those interested in range and forest 
industry, the future agriculture of Arizona may easily support a 
72293°—Bull. 235—11-6 
























82 


population of 500,000 people, outside of those connected with mines 
and transportation industries. 

The valuation of irrigated crops produced in 1907 on about 200,000 
acres in Arizona was about $9,000,000. Allowing for the crude 
methods in large part employed, it is fair to say that under improved 
conditions intensive farming will result in probably twice this return 
from irrigated lands. Five times the present area of doubly produc¬ 
tive land will yield an annual product worth $90,000,000, which, with 
a possible output of $20,000,000 annually from grazing ranges, 
would give a total for the agricultural Industrie’s of over $100,000,000 
annually. This is well in excess of the mining output of the Territory 
at the present time and suggests the possibility that finally in 
Arizona, as in the once mining States of California and Colorado, 
agriculture will become the leading industry. 

LINES OF PROGRESS. 

The lines of progress along which such outcome is possible relate 
to the legal, to the scientific, and to the social aspects of irrigation. 

In a region of limited water supply a thorough understanding of the 
principles of law relating to the use of water is absolutely essential to 
harmony among irrigators .and to the integrity of farm values. 
Fortunately, the two water users’ associations in the Salt River and 
Yuma Valleys, working in cooperation with the United States Recla¬ 
mation Service, are schools of irrigation law for those whose lands are 
included within these projects. These associations are organized in 
compliance with the principles of beneficial use of water on land; that 
particular shares of water shall be appurtenant to specified areas of 
land; and that priority of appropriation gives the better right to the 
use of water, etc. They therefore provide for the enforcement of 
these necessary but hitherto much neglected features of the Terri¬ 
torial law. With a constant influx to the Territory of settlers knowing 
nothing of the principles governing irrigation, sustained effort is 
needed on the part of the associations of irrigators, those called upon 
for legal advice, and educational institutions, to the end that all users 
of water may understand and observe willingly these indispensable 
equities in the use of water. 

Along scientific lines progress is variously possible and essential. 
Water conservation and development is a fundamental subject, 
calling for engineering, mechanical, and general scientific attention, 
beginning with the watersheds and ending only when the supply is 
delivered to the irrigator. The beneficial and effective use of water 
not only requires scientific study of climate, soils, and water, but 
expertness in the irrigation and culture of crops by water users. 
Rotation of crops and advantageous methods of farm management 

1 Bull. 235] 


83 


are of special importance in a region capable of an all-year succession of 
crops. Maintenance of fertility, control of alkali salts and plant 
diseases, and the management of domestic animals are all factors in 
farm practice in the region. The introduction and breeding of new 
plant varieties is of the highest importance in a region originally in 
possession of an extremely meager agricultural flora. Almost all 
important forages, fruits, and vegetables of the Territory originated 
in other regions, and the breeding of varieties especially adapted to 
the conditions is necessary to the best use of the limited water resources. 
Particular types of animals, as Algerian sheep, ostriches, and white 
Leghorn fowls, are favored to some extent also by the subtropical 
semiarid conditions. 

Cooperative social development is another necessary feature of 
farm life in the Southwest. The first act of an irrigator usuallv is to 
associate himself with others for the purpose of constructing a ditch 
and appropriating water. Cooperation can not stop, however, with 
water development. It is equally necessary, by reason of distance 
from large populations, to associate for the purpose of marketing 
products, and to this end there is now a small but increasing number 
of producers’ associations within the Territory which standardize, 
ship, and account to their members for oranges, cantaloups, and bee 
products sent to distant markets. This cooperative spirit is favored 
by the intensiveness of the agriculture and the consequent smallness 
of the farms and the nearness of neighbors. Such communities, with 
interurban lines of travel, good roads, rural delivery of mail, and the 
numerous meetings necessitated by their canal, shipping, and other 
organizations, will necessarily attain a degree of social development 
far in advance of that possible to a country of large farms without the 
incentives to organization existing in an isolated irrigated region. 

In conclusion, it may be said that the Arizona farmer is fortunate: 
(1) In the possession of water resources adequate, when developed, 
to irrigate about 1,000,000 acres and support probably a half million 
people; (2) in an immigrant population, which, coming from every 
State in the Union and most of the countries of the world, brings with 
it an extraordinary assortment of knowledge and every phase of 
character and social training; (3) in the operation of State and 
Federal institutions which are actively engaged in the development 
of water resources and in the solution of many agricultural prob¬ 
lems offered by this newly settled and unique region; and (4) in 
the possession of incentives to industrial and social cooperation which 
will result in a high type of rural society. 

[Bull. 235] 


o 









































I 






































